Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Secured party

Read a random definition: carriage and insurance paid to

A quick definition of Secured party:

A secured party is someone who has a legal right to take possession of something if a debt is not paid. This can include things like a car or a house that have been used as collateral for a loan. It can also include someone who has sold accounts, promissory notes, or other financial assets and still has a legal claim to them. Essentially, a secured party is someone who has a legal interest in property that is being used to secure a debt or other obligation.

A more thorough explanation:

Secured party

A secured party is a person who has a security interest in a property or asset. This means that they have a legal claim to the property or asset if the borrower fails to repay the loan or fulfill their obligations. The security interest is created through a security agreement, which outlines the terms of the loan and the collateral that is being used to secure it. The secured party can be a lender, a seller, or any other person who has a legal interest in the property or asset.

  • A bank that provides a loan to a borrower and takes a security interest in their car as collateral.
  • A supplier who sells goods to a retailer on credit and takes a security interest in the retailer's inventory.
  • A farmer who has a lien on crops that they have grown and harvested.

These examples illustrate how a secured party can be any person or entity that has a legal interest in a property or asset. In each case, the secured party has a security interest in the collateral that is being used to secure the loan or credit. If the borrower fails to repay the loan or fulfill their obligations, the secured party can take legal action to repossess the collateral and recover their losses.

Secured debt | Secured transaction

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
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.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.