and cure,” the cont fact that the indemnity contract is actually a promise to pay money cannot be divorced from the overall purpose of the transaction, which was maritime, nor the fact that a maritime right was given up as consideration. See Deval Denizcilik Ve Ticaret A.S. v. Agenzia Tripcovich S.R.L., 513 F.Supp.2d 6, 9 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (distinguishing mere promise to pay money from promise to pay money that served as consideration to gain release of maritime cargo from possible lien). In this case, the LOI was “entered into in connection with [a] maritime commercial venture” and, thus, is a contract that is “maritime in nature.” Williamson, 542 F.3d at 49. Therefore, the Court has admiralty jurisdiction over a lawsuit alleging breach of that maritime contract. See id. at 49 (<HOLDING>); Deval, 513 F.Supp.2d at 9 (holding that court
holding that at will contracts of employment are subject to tortious interference with contracts claims holding noncompete nondisclosure and lease contract agreements were maritime contracts when used in the context of employment aboard an exploration vessel holding that the court was not bound by the parties agreement that contracts were unambiguous and holding that contracts were ambiguous holding implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing found in some commercial contracts does not extend to atwill employment contracts holding that standard noncompete nondisclosure and lease contracts were still maritime contracts because of nature and character and connection to maritime commercial venture