This study is to investigate the interpretation of general average guarantee under general average with English law. The Maersk Neuchatel case is an important case for all parties involved in the negotiation of General Average security and will be of interest to all parties involved in negotiating other types of security. In light of this decision, a guarantor’s liability to pay an amount ascertained to be due under a General Average adjustment is likely to be construed as an on-demand guarantee to pay the amount ascertained to be due in the adjustment, unless express wording is included preserving the right to contest the adjustment and limiting the obligation to pay amounts that are legally due. When negotiating the wording of General Average security, it is important that one considers carefully the precise wording of the LOU and the effect it may have on a party’s obligation to make payment of general average contributions. It may be appropriate to insert additional wording to protect a party’s ability to contest the determination in the average adjustment and limit the guarantor’s payment obligation to making payment of amounts legally due. For other forms of security, this decision reinforces the point that all terms of the security should be included in the guarantee itself, rather than in related correspondence: the safest course of action will always be to treat the guarantee document as “stand alone” and likely to be strictly construed.