Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

without recourse

Read a random definition: deadhand control

A quick definition of without recourse:

Without recourse means that one person cannot legally make a claim against another person. This can happen in two ways. First, in a lawsuit, someone without recourse cannot sue another person or may not get any help even if they do sue. Second, in financial transactions, "without recourse" means that the person who signs a check takes no responsibility if the check bounces. This means that the bank cannot take money from the person who signed the check if it bounces.

A more thorough explanation:

Definition: Without recourse is a phrase used to indicate that one party has no legal claim against another party. It is commonly used in two contexts:

  1. Litigation: When someone is without recourse against another party, they cannot sue that party or cannot obtain adequate relief even if a lawsuit moves forward. If someone is completely without recourse, they cannot sue anyone for an alleged injury, or cannot obtain any relief even if lawsuits are filed.
  2. Financial Transactions: The words "without recourse" disclaim any liability to the subsequent holder of a financial instrument. For example, endorsing a check and adding "without recourse" to the signature means that the endorser takes no responsibility if the check bounces for insufficient funds. If the bank accepts such a check and deposits the stated amount in the endorser's account, the bank will have no right to withdraw that amount from the endorser's account.

Examples:

  • Example 1: In a lawsuit, if a plaintiff is without recourse against a defendant, it means that the plaintiff cannot sue the defendant or cannot obtain any relief even if a lawsuit moves forward.
  • Example 2: If a person endorses a check and adds "without recourse" to the signature, it means that the endorser takes no responsibility if the check bounces for insufficient funds. The bank will have no right to withdraw that amount from the endorser's account.

The examples illustrate how the phrase "without recourse" is used in different contexts. In litigation, it means that one party cannot sue another party or cannot obtain any relief even if a lawsuit moves forward. In financial transactions, it means that the endorser takes no responsibility if the check bounces for insufficient funds, and the bank will have no right to withdraw that amount from the endorser's account.

withholding | witness

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.