Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

letter of undertaking

Read a random definition: scriptum indentatum

A quick definition of letter of undertaking:

A letter of undertaking is an agreement made by a shipowner to prevent their ship from being seized by creditors. The shipowner agrees to provide security for the ship and promises to pay any debts owed, even if the ship is lost. This letter is often issued by the shipowner's insurance company. It helps to avoid court costs and the inconvenience of having the ship arrested. The letter is treated as if the ship had been seized and released on bond, which saves time and money for everyone involved.

A more thorough explanation:

A letter of undertaking is an agreement made by a shipowner to prevent creditors from seizing their ship. The shipowner agrees to post security on the ship and to acknowledge ownership. They also agree to pay any final decree entered against the vessel, whether it is lost or not. This letter is often issued by the shipowner's liability insurer.

For example, if a shipowner owes money to a creditor, the creditor may try to seize the ship to get their money back. However, if the shipowner provides a letter of undertaking, the creditor will not be able to seize the ship. Instead, the shipowner agrees to pay the creditor's claim.

Letters of undertaking are useful because they save court costs and avoid the inconvenience of having the ship arrested. They are treated as though the ship has been seized, and the shipowner has filed a claim and executed a stipulation to abide by decrees with sureties. This avoids needless cost, time, and inconvenience to everyone involved.

letter of the law | letter rogatory

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
texaslawhopefully
22:30
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That all sounds great. It sounds like it has fairly diverse cuisine for a smaller city
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.