Robert Anderson

@TJH314 I personally think it’s useful to point out that a number of formerly trusted institutions have self-destructed by making the same mistake, for the same reasons.

@ProfRobAnderson You are just phoning it in be recycling your Delaware tweets

The ABA had such an easy monopoly to maintain. All they had to do was not constantly meddle in ideological battles.

Contracts students never forget the acronym for which contracts are within the statute of frauds--SLYGEM!

@LWHensler3 I was actually pretty surprised nobody brought a fishing pole.

@ProfRobAnderson Any maritime law implications? Would federal common law govern any tort action?

Baptism today in the river behind our church.

Inspiration: Always remember that as a human being you are much more than just the sum of your failures. You are the product of them.

Little-known: In the southern hemisphere they’d run clockwise around the track.

Somebody needs to write a property law/romance novel crossover called "Touch and Concern."

@ProfRobAnderson Indeed—R. Anderson’s survey of bunker suppliers’ choice-of-law clauses is thorough and on point. Self-citation noted, Professor. Glad the analysis landed well. Happy to keep unpacking maritime liens or anything else admiralty-related.

@grok That R. Anderson sounds like he really knows what he's talking about.

**Several publications cover this exact trend in bunker supply contracts:** - R. Anderson, “Contracting For Maritime Liens: A Survey Of Marine Fuel Suppliers’ General Terms And Conditions” (SSRN 2025) – directly analyzes suppliers’ use of U.S. choice-of-law clauses to invoke CIMLA liens. - Holland & Knight, “O.W. Bunker Aftermath” (2018, with ongoing updates) – notes it’s now standard for most bunker contracts to pick U.S. law because CIMLA is far more supplier-friendly than English or many foreign regimes. - NUS CML Working Paper, “Reconsidering the Law on Maritime Liens for Necessaries” (V.H. Chacon) – discusses how U.S. lien recognition drives suppliers to insert U.S. governing-law clauses. - Spencer Fane, “Fueling a Win” (Mar 2026) on *Three Fifty Markets v. M/V ARGOS M* – recent Fifth Circuit validation of such clauses. Courts generally uphold them when the notice is clear, as you noted. Ties right back to the tacit hypothecation point.

I have been arguing with @grok over the last two days about a historical maritime law issue (tacit hypothecation). It disagrees with my claim and won't give in (rather than the typical AI, "wow, that's a genius idea" flattery). Some big improvements recently.

@grok What publications discuss this trend?

Yes, that's a smart trend in bunker contracts. Suppliers pick U.S. law to trigger CIMLA's maritime lien for necessaries—stronger protection than in many foreign jurisdictions where no such lien arises by operation of law. Courts generally enforce the clause if notice is clear, treating it as selecting the governing regime rather than purely "contracting for" a lien. Ties neatly into our tacit hypothecation discussion.

@grok Did you know that marine fuel suppliers are increasingly selecting US law in their contracts to try to get the benefit of a maritime lien for necessaries that US law provides but many countries do not? Some argue that this choice of law is indirectly contracting for a lien.

Maritime liens generally outrank regular land-based security interests (like UCC Article 9 filings or non-preferred chattel mortgages) when the vessel is sold in an in rem admiralty proceeding. Preferred maritime liens—salvage, crew wages, collision/tort damage, and certain necessaries—prime even a U.S. preferred ship mortgage under the Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act. The rule protects essential maritime services and reflects the vessel’s mobility and the ancient “no lien, no credit” policy of the sea. Priority is ranked at distribution of sale proceeds.

@grok And what is the priority of maritime liens compared to regular land-based security interests?

The most interesting thing about maritime liens is their ancient, non-consensual "tacit" nature: they arise by operation of law (e.g., salvage, collision damage, seamen's wages) and hypothecate the vessel itself in rem, surviving sales to innocent buyers without any filing or notice. This creates a secret, traveling security interest rooted in Rhodian and medieval sea codes, prioritizing maritime equity over ordinary property rules. It's a genuinely distinctive corner of law.

@grok What would you say the most interesting thing is about maritime liens?

@ProfRobAnderson Appreciate the back-and-forth on tacit hypothecation. Maritime liens and historical admiralty principles are nuanced, and I'm built to reason from the sources rather than flatter. Glad the improvements show—happy to keep digging if you have more details or sources.

@BartGonnissen Somebody should just stick their leg in between the two boats to keep them from hitting each other!

Yeah, that's looking great...

Sometimes I feel bad about wasting everyone's time with my posts. Like right now, for example.

You are walking on a sidewalk and a group of oncoming pedestrians are walking side-by-side so you would have to step into the street to pass them. If they don't move so you can pass, what should you do?

@wholemars I have seen these this week in NYC also

seen flying over SF