english law assignment of obligations

• assignments basic law

Assignments: The Basic Law

The assignment of a right or obligation is a common contractual event under the law and the right to assign (or prohibition against assignments) is found in the majority of agreements, leases and business structural documents created in the United States.

As with many terms commonly used, people are familiar with the term but often are not aware or fully aware of what the terms entail. The concept of assignment of rights and obligations is one of those simple concepts with wide ranging ramifications in the contractual and business context and the law imposes severe restrictions on the validity and effect of assignment in many instances. Clear contractual provisions concerning assignments and rights should be in every document and structure created and this article will outline why such drafting is essential for the creation of appropriate and effective contracts and structures.

The reader should first read the article on Limited Liability Entities in the United States and Contracts since the information in those articles will be assumed in this article.

Basic Definitions and Concepts:

An assignment is the transfer of rights held by one party called the “assignor” to another party called the “assignee.” The legal nature of the assignment and the contractual terms of the agreement between the parties determines some additional rights and liabilities that accompany the assignment. The assignment of rights under a contract usually completely transfers the rights to the assignee to receive the benefits accruing under the contract. Ordinarily, the term assignment is limited to the transfer of rights that are intangible, like contractual rights and rights connected with property. Merchants Service Co. v. Small Claims Court , 35 Cal. 2d 109, 113-114 (Cal. 1950).

An assignment will generally be permitted under the law unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the underlying contract or lease. Where assignments are permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract but may merely assign the rights at that time. However, an assignment cannot have any adverse effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it diminish the chance of the other party receiving complete performance. The assignor normally remains liable unless there is an agreement to the contrary by the other party to the contract.

The effect of a valid assignment is to remove privity between the assignor and the obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee. Privity is usually defined as a direct and immediate contractual relationship. See Merchants case above.

Further, for the assignment to be effective in most jurisdictions, it must occur in the present. One does not normally assign a future right; the assignment vests immediate rights and obligations.

No specific language is required to create an assignment so long as the assignor makes clear his/her intent to assign identified contractual rights to the assignee. Since expensive litigation can erupt from ambiguous or vague language, obtaining the correct verbiage is vital. An agreement must manifest the intent to transfer rights and can either be oral or in writing and the rights assigned must be certain.

Note that an assignment of an interest is the transfer of some identifiable property, claim, or right from the assignor to the assignee. The assignment operates to transfer to the assignee all of the rights, title, or interest of the assignor in the thing assigned. A transfer of all rights, title, and interests conveys everything that the assignor owned in the thing assigned and the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor. Knott v. McDonald’s Corp ., 985 F. Supp. 1222 (N.D. Cal. 1997)

The parties must intend to effectuate an assignment at the time of the transfer, although no particular language or procedure is necessary. As long ago as the case of National Reserve Co. v. Metropolitan Trust Co ., 17 Cal. 2d 827 (Cal. 1941), the court held that in determining what rights or interests pass under an assignment, the intention of the parties as manifested in the instrument is controlling.

The intent of the parties to an assignment is a question of fact to be derived not only from the instrument executed by the parties but also from the surrounding circumstances. When there is no writing to evidence the intention to transfer some identifiable property, claim, or right, it is necessary to scrutinize the surrounding circumstances and parties’ acts to ascertain their intentions. Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998)

The general rule applicable to assignments of choses in action is that an assignment, unless there is a contract to the contrary, carries with it all securities held by the assignor as collateral to the claim and all rights incidental thereto and vests in the assignee the equitable title to such collateral securities and incidental rights. An unqualified assignment of a contract or chose in action, however, with no indication of the intent of the parties, vests in the assignee the assigned contract or chose and all rights and remedies incidental thereto.

More examples: In Strosberg v. Brauvin Realty Servs ., 295 Ill. App. 3d 17 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1998), the court held that the assignee of a party to a subordination agreement is entitled to the benefits and is subject to the burdens of the agreement. In Florida E. C. R. Co. v. Eno , 99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930), the court held that the mere assignment of all sums due in and of itself creates no different or other liability of the owner to the assignee than that which existed from the owner to the assignor.

And note that even though an assignment vests in the assignee all rights, remedies, and contingent benefits which are incidental to the thing assigned, those which are personal to the assignor and for his sole benefit are not assigned. Rasp v. Hidden Valley Lake, Inc ., 519 N.E.2d 153, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Thus, if the underlying agreement provides that a service can only be provided to X, X cannot assign that right to Y.

Novation Compared to Assignment:

Although the difference between a novation and an assignment may appear narrow, it is an essential one. “Novation is a act whereby one party transfers all its obligations and benefits under a contract to a third party.” In a novation, a third party successfully substitutes the original party as a party to the contract. “When a contract is novated, the other contracting party must be left in the same position he was in prior to the novation being made.”

A sublease is the transfer when a tenant retains some right of reentry onto the leased premises. However, if the tenant transfers the entire leasehold estate, retaining no right of reentry or other reversionary interest, then the transfer is an assignment. The assignor is normally also removed from liability to the landlord only if the landlord consents or allowed that right in the lease. In a sublease, the original tenant is not released from the obligations of the original lease.

Equitable Assignments:

An equitable assignment is one in which one has a future interest and is not valid at law but valid in a court of equity. In National Bank of Republic v. United Sec. Life Ins. & Trust Co. , 17 App. D.C. 112 (D.C. Cir. 1900), the court held that to constitute an equitable assignment of a chose in action, the following has to occur generally: anything said written or done, in pursuance of an agreement and for valuable consideration, or in consideration of an antecedent debt, to place a chose in action or fund out of the control of the owner, and appropriate it to or in favor of another person, amounts to an equitable assignment. Thus, an agreement, between a debtor and a creditor, that the debt shall be paid out of a specific fund going to the debtor may operate as an equitable assignment.

In Egyptian Navigation Co. v. Baker Invs. Corp. , 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30804 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008), the court stated that an equitable assignment occurs under English law when an assignor, with an intent to transfer his/her right to a chose in action, informs the assignee about the right so transferred.

An executory agreement or a declaration of trust are also equitable assignments if unenforceable as assignments by a court of law but enforceable by a court of equity exercising sound discretion according to the circumstances of the case. Since California combines courts of equity and courts of law, the same court would hear arguments as to whether an equitable assignment had occurred. Quite often, such relief is granted to avoid fraud or unjust enrichment.

Note that obtaining an assignment through fraudulent means invalidates the assignment. Fraud destroys the validity of everything into which it enters. It vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. Walker v. Rich , 79 Cal. App. 139 (Cal. App. 1926). If an assignment is made with the fraudulent intent to delay, hinder, and defraud creditors, then it is void as fraudulent in fact. See our article on Transfers to Defraud Creditors .

But note that the motives that prompted an assignor to make the transfer will be considered as immaterial and will constitute no defense to an action by the assignee, if an assignment is considered as valid in all other respects.

Enforceability of Assignments:

Whether a right under a contract is capable of being transferred is determined by the law of the place where the contract was entered into. The validity and effect of an assignment is determined by the law of the place of assignment. The validity of an assignment of a contractual right is governed by the law of the state with the most significant relationship to the assignment and the parties.

In some jurisdictions, the traditional conflict of laws rules governing assignments has been rejected and the law of the place having the most significant contacts with the assignment applies. In Downs v. American Mut. Liability Ins. Co ., 14 N.Y.2d 266 (N.Y. 1964), a wife and her husband separated and the wife obtained a judgment of separation from the husband in New York. The judgment required the husband to pay a certain yearly sum to the wife. The husband assigned 50 percent of his future salary, wages, and earnings to the wife. The agreement authorized the employer to make such payments to the wife.

After the husband moved from New York, the wife learned that he was employed by an employer in Massachusetts. She sent the proper notice and demanded payment under the agreement. The employer refused and the wife brought an action for enforcement. The court observed that Massachusetts did not prohibit assignment of the husband’s wages. Moreover, Massachusetts law was not controlling because New York had the most significant relationship with the assignment. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the wife.

Therefore, the validity of an assignment is determined by looking to the law of the forum with the most significant relationship to the assignment itself. To determine the applicable law of assignments, the court must look to the law of the state which is most significantly related to the principal issue before it.

Assignment of Contractual Rights:

Generally, the law allows the assignment of a contractual right unless the substitution of rights would materially change the duty of the obligor, materially increase the burden or risk imposed on the obligor by the contract, materially impair the chance of obtaining return performance, or materially reduce the value of the performance to the obligor. Restat 2d of Contracts, § 317(2)(a). This presumes that the underlying agreement is silent on the right to assign.

If the contract specifically precludes assignment, the contractual right is not assignable. Whether a contract is assignable is a matter of contractual intent and one must look to the language used by the parties to discern that intent.

In the absence of an express provision to the contrary, the rights and duties under a bilateral executory contract that does not involve personal skill, trust, or confidence may be assigned without the consent of the other party. But note that an assignment is invalid if it would materially alter the other party’s duties and responsibilities. Once an assignment is effective, the assignee stands in the shoes of the assignor and assumes all of assignor’s rights. Hence, after a valid assignment, the assignor’s right to performance is extinguished, transferred to assignee, and the assignee possesses the same rights, benefits, and remedies assignor once possessed. Robert Lamb Hart Planners & Architects v. Evergreen, Ltd. , 787 F. Supp. 753 (S.D. Ohio 1992).

On the other hand, an assignee’s right against the obligor is subject to “all of the limitations of the assignor’s right, all defenses thereto, and all set-offs and counterclaims which would have been available against the assignor had there been no assignment, provided that these defenses and set-offs are based on facts existing at the time of the assignment.” See Robert Lamb , case, above.

The power of the contract to restrict assignment is broad. Usually, contractual provisions that restrict assignment of the contract without the consent of the obligor are valid and enforceable, even when there is statutory authorization for the assignment. The restriction of the power to assign is often ineffective unless the restriction is expressly and precisely stated. Anti-assignment clauses are effective only if they contain clear, unambiguous language of prohibition. Anti-assignment clauses protect only the obligor and do not affect the transaction between the assignee and assignor.

Usually, a prohibition against the assignment of a contract does not prevent an assignment of the right to receive payments due, unless circumstances indicate the contrary. Moreover, the contracting parties cannot, by a mere non-assignment provision, prevent the effectual alienation of the right to money which becomes due under the contract.

A contract provision prohibiting or restricting an assignment may be waived, or a party may so act as to be estopped from objecting to the assignment, such as by effectively ratifying the assignment. The power to void an assignment made in violation of an anti-assignment clause may be waived either before or after the assignment. See our article on Contracts.

Noncompete Clauses and Assignments:

Of critical import to most buyers of businesses is the ability to ensure that key employees of the business being purchased cannot start a competing company. Some states strictly limit such clauses, some do allow them. California does restrict noncompete clauses, only allowing them under certain circumstances. A common question in those states that do allow them is whether such rights can be assigned to a new party, such as the buyer of the buyer.

A covenant not to compete, also called a non-competitive clause, is a formal agreement prohibiting one party from performing similar work or business within a designated area for a specified amount of time. This type of clause is generally included in contracts between employer and employee and contracts between buyer and seller of a business.

Many workers sign a covenant not to compete as part of the paperwork required for employment. It may be a separate document similar to a non-disclosure agreement, or buried within a number of other clauses in a contract. A covenant not to compete is generally legal and enforceable, although there are some exceptions and restrictions.

Whenever a company recruits skilled employees, it invests a significant amount of time and training. For example, it often takes years before a research chemist or a design engineer develops a workable knowledge of a company’s product line, including trade secrets and highly sensitive information. Once an employee gains this knowledge and experience, however, all sorts of things can happen. The employee could work for the company until retirement, accept a better offer from a competing company or start up his or her own business.

A covenant not to compete may cover a number of potential issues between employers and former employees. Many companies spend years developing a local base of customers or clients. It is important that this customer base not fall into the hands of local competitors. When an employee signs a covenant not to compete, he or she usually agrees not to use insider knowledge of the company’s customer base to disadvantage the company. The covenant not to compete often defines a broad geographical area considered off-limits to former employees, possibly tens or hundreds of miles.

Another area of concern covered by a covenant not to compete is a potential ‘brain drain’. Some high-level former employees may seek to recruit others from the same company to create new competition. Retention of employees, especially those with unique skills or proprietary knowledge, is vital for most companies, so a covenant not to compete may spell out definite restrictions on the hiring or recruiting of employees.

A covenant not to compete may also define a specific amount of time before a former employee can seek employment in a similar field. Many companies offer a substantial severance package to make sure former employees are financially solvent until the terms of the covenant not to compete have been met.

Because the use of a covenant not to compete can be controversial, a handful of states, including California, have largely banned this type of contractual language. The legal enforcement of these agreements falls on individual states, and many have sided with the employee during arbitration or litigation. A covenant not to compete must be reasonable and specific, with defined time periods and coverage areas. If the agreement gives the company too much power over former employees or is ambiguous, state courts may declare it to be overbroad and therefore unenforceable. In such case, the employee would be free to pursue any employment opportunity, including working for a direct competitor or starting up a new company of his or her own.

It has been held that an employee’s covenant not to compete is assignable where one business is transferred to another, that a merger does not constitute an assignment of a covenant not to compete, and that a covenant not to compete is enforceable by a successor to the employer where the assignment does not create an added burden of employment or other disadvantage to the employee. However, in some states such as Hawaii, it has also been held that a covenant not to compete is not assignable and under various statutes for various reasons that such covenants are not enforceable against an employee by a successor to the employer. Hawaii v. Gannett Pac. Corp. , 99 F. Supp. 2d 1241 (D. Haw. 1999)

It is vital to obtain the relevant law of the applicable state before drafting or attempting to enforce assignment rights in this particular area.

Conclusion:

In the current business world of fast changing structures, agreements, employees and projects, the ability to assign rights and obligations is essential to allow flexibility and adjustment to new situations. Conversely, the ability to hold a contracting party into the deal may be essential for the future of a party. Thus, the law of assignments and the restriction on same is a critical aspect of every agreement and every structure. This basic provision is often glanced at by the contracting parties, or scribbled into the deal at the last minute but can easily become the most vital part of the transaction.

As an example, one client of ours came into the office outraged that his co venturer on a sizable exporting agreement, who had excellent connections in Brazil, had elected to pursue another venture instead and assigned the agreement to a party unknown to our client and without the business contacts our client considered vital. When we examined the handwritten agreement our client had drafted in a restaurant in Sao Paolo, we discovered there was no restriction on assignment whatsoever…our client had not even considered that right when drafting the agreement after a full day of work.

One choses who one does business with carefully…to ensure that one’s choice remains the party on the other side of the contract, one must master the ability to negotiate proper assignment provisions.

Founded in 1939, our law firm combines the ability to represent clients in domestic or international matters with the personal interaction with clients that is traditional to a long established law firm.

Read more about our firm

© 2024, Stimmel, Stimmel & Roeser, All rights reserved  | Terms of Use | Site by Bay Design

Hall Ellis Solicitors

assignment of contract rights, novation and assignment clauses

Assignment of contract rights .

There is no such thing as an assignment of a contract.

It was held in Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd  1993 UKHL 4 (22 July 1993):

It is trite law that it is, in any event, impossible to assign "the contract" as a whole, i.e. including both burden and benefit. The burden of a contract can never be assigned without the consent of the other party to the contract in which event such consent will give rise to a novation. Although it is true that the phrase "assign this contract" is not strictly accurate, lawyers frequently use those words inaccurately to describe an assignment of the benefit of a contract since every lawyer knows that the burden of a contract cannot be assigned.

In short, contracts are not assigned:

• ownership of assets is assigned.
• Contractual rights are transferred. They're novated.

So when it comes to “assigning” (ie transferring or novating) contracts, there are 3 possibilities:

• Transfer all or part of the burden of the contract to another person. This is novation
• Assign all or part of the benefit of the contract to another person
• Transfer the whole of the benefit and the burden to another person. This is also novation.

The general law does not require any particular formality to novation.

Where a supplier notifies a contracting partner that they will be replaced by another supplier, and then starts to receive supply from the new supplier without objection or complaint, there's a good chance the contract has been novated.

That's acceptance of a new contract (and termination of the old contract) by conduct.

When businesses enter administration or liquidation, potential purchasers might express an interest in “acquiring the contracts” of the business. That requires novation of each contract, individually.

Novation is a fundamental principle of contract law, and is closely related to privity of contract . It's pretty difficult to understand one without the other.

What do "Assignment Clauses" in Contract do then?

Assignment clauses either:

• confirm the general operation of the law - ie no transfers of contractual rights. It expressly prohibits or enables transfers of the burden or the benefit of the contract.
• displace or override the general rule of law of novation, in favour of one party or both parties.

Do you need one or not?  That depends.

Context of Assignment Clauses

Contracts impose strict liability on the contracting parties to perform their legal obligations. 

It means this: if a seller does not perform what they are required to do under the contract to the standard fixed by the contract, they’re in breach of contract , and liable to make good on a legal remedy for breach.  Likewise, if a buyer does not do what they are legally required to do, they’re in breach of contract, and facing the same consequences .

For example, take a company supplying SaaS related services:

The SaaS supplier hosts its SaaS solution in the cloud for its customers.  The SaaS supplier doesn't own its own infrastructure for the hosting. It subcontracts the hosting to a dedicated hosting company, such as Rackspace. That subcontracting doesn't relieve the SaaS supplier from its obligations to perform the contract: in this example, host the SaaS solution in the cloud to its own customers. Using Rackspace to host the SaaS solution is just a delegation of the contractual duty of the SaaS supplier to provide services to the customer. If the hosting fails, the SaaS supplier is liable to its customers for the breach of contract. Not Rackspace.

Assignment clauses permit transfer of contractual obligations to perform the burden of the contract to third parties. So, where the obligation to perform is assigned to a third party and it's not performed, it will be the party that has taken over the burden of the contract (ie the assignee) that will be liable to the customer. Not the original contracting party (which would be the SaaS supplier in the example above).

The end result is that one of the original contracting parties is no longer a party to the contract: that’s novation. 

Example: Assignment Clause

A boilerplate provision to prevent assignment of the benefit and burden in a contract might be:

Neither party may without the prior written consent of the other party assign a benefit or obligation imposed in this Agreement.

The reference to “obligation” is usually redundant, because it can't be transferred without the consent of the other party in the first place.

Contract Assignments vs Subcontracting

Assignment clauses shouldn't be confused with subcontracting clauses .

The general law provides that a contracting party is entitled to subcontract works to a third person, unless there is a contractual restriction preventing it.

It would be quite a mistake to regard that as an "assignment" of the obligations under the contract.

It isn't a transfer of the contract, or any part of the burden of the contract.

It's a delegation .

Subcontracting performance of contractual obligations:

• is permitted where personal performance is not required to produce the result intended by the contract
• means performance by the subcontractor will discharge the principal contracting party's obligations.
• The principal contracting party remains liable if the subcontractor does not complete performance on behalf of the principal contracting party. 
• Boilerplate Clauses
• Who are you actually contracting with? Separate Legal Entities
• Increasing Liability for Breach of Contract: Indemnities 

Contract Law Solicitors

Contract law can be tricky. Sometimes it's matter of seeing what has happened before when parties have tried to transfer a contract to ascertain what is likely to happen in the case at hand.

Transferring contract rights and obligations can be a serious business. Getting it wrong can mean a party is in breach of contract,  leading to termination and damages claims. 

If you're in business and need legal advice on a contract, call +44 20 7036 9282 to speak for an initial chat with one of our contract law solicitors or email your enquiry to [email protected] .

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Statement
• Cookie Policy

Legal Advice

• Software Legal Advice
• Business Contracts
• Intellectual Property Advice

Contact Information

89 Fleet Street London EC4Y 1DH

[email protected]

+44 20 7036 9282

14.1 Assignment of Contract Rights

Learning objectives.

• Understand what an assignment is and how it is made.
• Recognize the effect of the assignment.
• Know when assignments are not allowed.
• Understand the concept of assignor’s warranties.

The Concept of a Contract Assignment

Contracts create rights and duties. By an assignment The passing or delivering by one person to another of the right to a contract benefit. , an obligee One to whom an obligation is owed. (one who has the right to receive a contract benefit) transfers a right to receive a contract benefit owed by the obligor One who owes an obligation. (the one who has a duty to perform) to a third person ( assignee One to whom the right to receive benefit of a contract is passed or delivered. ); the obligee then becomes an assignor One who agrees to allow another to receive the benefit of a contract. (one who makes an assignment).

The Restatement (Second) of Contracts defines an assignment of a right as “a manifestation of the assignor’s intention to transfer it by virtue of which the assignor’s right to performance by the obligor is extinguished in whole or in part and the assignee acquires the right to such performance.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Section 317(1). The one who makes the assignment is both an obligee and a transferor. The assignee acquires the right to receive the contractual obligations of the promisor, who is referred to as the obligor (see Figure 14.1 "Assignment of Rights" ). The assignor may assign any right unless (1) doing so would materially change the obligation of the obligor, materially burden him, increase his risk, or otherwise diminish the value to him of the original contract; (2) statute or public policy forbids the assignment; or (3) the contract itself precludes assignment. The common law of contracts and Articles 2 and 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) govern assignments. Assignments are an important part of business financing, such as factoring. A factor A person who pays money to receive another’s executory contractual benefits. is one who purchases the right to receive income from another.

Figure 14.1 Assignment of Rights

Method of Assignment

Manifesting assent.

To effect an assignment, the assignor must make known his intention to transfer the rights to the third person. The assignor’s intention must be that the assignment is effective without need of any further action or any further manifestation of intention to make the assignment. In other words, the assignor must intend and understand himself to be making the assignment then and there; he is not promising to make the assignment sometime in the future.

Under the UCC, any assignments of rights in excess of $5,000 must be in writing, but otherwise, assignments can be oral and consideration is not required: the assignor could assign the right to the assignee for nothing (not likely in commercial transactions, of course). Mrs. Franklin has the right to receive $750 a month from the sale of a house she formerly owned; she assigns the right to receive the money to her son Jason, as a gift. The assignment is good, though such a gratuitous assignment is usually revocable, which is not the case where consideration has been paid for an assignment.

Acceptance and Revocation

For the assignment to become effective, the assignee must manifest his acceptance under most circumstances. This is done automatically when, as is usually the case, the assignee has given consideration for the assignment (i.e., there is a contract between the assignor and the assignee in which the assignment is the assignor’s consideration), and then the assignment is not revocable without the assignee’s consent. Problems of acceptance normally arise only when the assignor intends the assignment as a gift. Then, for the assignment to be irrevocable, either the assignee must manifest his acceptance or the assignor must notify the assignee in writing of the assignment.

Notice to the obligor is not required, but an obligor who renders performance to the assignor without notice of the assignment (that performance of the contract is to be rendered now to the assignee) is discharged. Obviously, the assignor cannot then keep the consideration he has received; he owes it to the assignee. But if notice is given to the obligor and she performs to the assignor anyway, the assignee can recover from either the obligor or the assignee, so the obligor could have to perform twice, as in Exercise 2 at the chapter’s end, Aldana v. Colonial Palms Plaza . Of course, an obligor who receives notice of the assignment from the assignee will want to be sure the assignment has really occurred. After all, anybody could waltz up to the obligor and say, “I’m the assignee of your contract with the bank. From now on, pay me the $500 a month, not the bank.” The obligor is entitled to verification of the assignment.

Effect of Assignment

General rule.

An assignment of rights effectively makes the assignee stand in the shoes of An assignee takes no greater rights than his assignor had. the assignor. He gains all the rights against the obligor that the assignor had, but no more. An obligor who could avoid the assignor’s attempt to enforce the rights could avoid a similar attempt by the assignee. Likewise, under UCC Section 9-318(1), the assignee of an account is subject to all terms of the contract between the debtor and the creditor-assignor. Suppose Dealer sells a car to Buyer on a contract where Buyer is to pay $300 per month and the car is warranted for 50,000 miles. If the car goes on the fritz before then and Dealer won’t fix it, Buyer could fix it for, say, $250 and deduct that $250 from the amount owed Dealer on the next installment (called a setoff). Now, if Dealer assigns the contract to Assignee, Assignee stands in Dealer’s shoes, and Buyer could likewise deduct the $250 from payment to Assignee.

The “shoe rule” does not apply to two types of assignments. First, it is inapplicable to the sale of a negotiable instrument to a holder in due course (covered in detail Chapter 23 "Negotiation of Commercial Paper" ). Second, the rule may be waived: under the UCC and at common law, the obligor may agree in the original contract not to raise defenses against the assignee that could have been raised against the assignor. Uniform Commercial Code, Section 9-206. While a waiver of defenses Surrender by a party of legal rights otherwise available to him or her. makes the assignment more marketable from the assignee’s point of view, it is a situation fraught with peril to an obligor, who may sign a contract without understanding the full import of the waiver. Under the waiver rule, for example, a farmer who buys a tractor on credit and discovers later that it does not work would still be required to pay a credit company that purchased the contract; his defense that the merchandise was shoddy would be unavailing (he would, as used to be said, be “having to pay on a dead horse”).

For that reason, there are various rules that limit both the holder in due course and the waiver rule. Certain defenses, the so-called real defenses (infancy, duress, and fraud in the execution, among others), may always be asserted. Also, the waiver clause in the contract must have been presented in good faith, and if the assignee has actual notice of a defense that the buyer or lessee could raise, then the waiver is ineffective. Moreover, in consumer transactions, the UCC’s rule is subject to state laws that protect consumers (people buying things used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes), and many states, by statute or court decision, have made waivers of defenses ineffective in such consumer transactions A contract for household or domestic purposes, not commercial purposes. . Federal Trade Commission regulations also affect the ability of many sellers to pass on rights to assignees free of defenses that buyers could raise against them. Because of these various limitations on the holder in due course and on waivers, the “shoe rule” will not govern in consumer transactions and, if there are real defenses or the assignee does not act in good faith, in business transactions as well.

When Assignments Are Not Allowed

The general rule—as previously noted—is that most contract rights are assignable. But there are exceptions. Five of them are noted here.

Material Change in Duties of the Obligor

When an assignment has the effect of materially changing the duties that the obligor must perform, it is ineffective. Changing the party to whom the obligor must make a payment is not a material change of duty that will defeat an assignment, since that, of course, is the purpose behind most assignments. Nor will a minor change in the duties the obligor must perform defeat the assignment.

Several residents in the town of Centerville sign up on an annual basis with the Centerville Times to receive their morning paper. A customer who is moving out of town may assign his right to receive the paper to someone else within the delivery route. As long as the assignee pays for the paper, the assignment is effective; the only relationship the obligor has to the assignee is a routine delivery in exchange for payment. Obligors can consent in the original contract, however, to a subsequent assignment of duties. Here is a clause from the World Team Tennis League contract: “It is mutually agreed that the Club shall have the right to sell, assign, trade and transfer this contract to another Club in the League, and the Player agrees to accept and be bound by such sale, exchange, assignment or transfer and to faithfully perform and carry out his or her obligations under this contract as if it had been entered into by the Player and such other Club.” Consent is not necessary when the contract does not involve a personal relationship.

Assignment of Personal Rights

When it matters to the obligor who receives the benefit of his duty to perform under the contract, then the receipt of the benefit is a personal right The right or duty of a particular person to perform or receive contract duties or benefits; cannot be assigned. that cannot be assigned. For example, a student seeking to earn pocket money during the school year signs up to do research work for a professor she admires and with whom she is friendly. The professor assigns the contract to one of his colleagues with whom the student does not get along. The assignment is ineffective because it matters to the student (the obligor) who the person of the assignee is. An insurance company provides auto insurance covering Mohammed Kareem, a sixty-five-year-old man who drives very carefully. Kareem cannot assign the contract to his seventeen-year-old grandson because it matters to the insurance company who the person of its insured is. Tenants usually cannot assign (sublet) their tenancies without the landlord’s permission because it matters to the landlord who the person of their tenant is. Section 14.4.1 "Nonassignable Rights" , Nassau Hotel Co. v. Barnett & Barse Corp. , is an example of the nonassignability of a personal right.

Assignment Forbidden by Statute or Public Policy

Various federal and state laws prohibit or regulate some contract assignment. The assignment of future wages is regulated by state and federal law to protect people from improvidently denying themselves future income because of immediate present financial difficulties. And even in the absence of statute, public policy might prohibit some assignments.

Contracts That Prohibit Assignment

Assignability of contract rights is useful, and prohibitions against it are not generally favored. Many contracts contain general language that prohibits assignment of rights or of “the contract.” Both the Restatement and UCC Section 2-210(3) declare that in the absence of any contrary circumstances, a provision in the agreement that prohibits assigning “the contract” bars “only the delegation to the assignee of the assignor’s performance.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts, Section 322. In other words, unless the contract specifically prohibits assignment of any of its terms, a party is free to assign anything except his or her own duties.

Even if a contractual provision explicitly prohibits it, a right to damages for breach of the whole contract is assignable under UCC Section 2-210(2) in contracts for goods. Likewise, UCC Section 9-318(4) invalidates any contract provision that prohibits assigning sums already due or to become due. Indeed, in some states, at common law, a clause specifically prohibiting assignment will fail. For example, the buyer and the seller agree to the sale of land and to a provision barring assignment of the rights under the contract. The buyer pays the full price, but the seller refuses to convey. The buyer then assigns to her friend the right to obtain title to the land from the seller. The latter’s objection that the contract precludes such an assignment will fall on deaf ears in some states; the assignment is effective, and the friend may sue for the title.

Future Contracts

The law distinguishes between assigning future rights under an existing contract and assigning rights that will arise from a future contract. Rights contingent on a future event can be assigned in exactly the same manner as existing rights, as long as the contingent rights are already incorporated in a contract. Ben has a long-standing deal with his neighbor, Mrs. Robinson, to keep the latter’s walk clear of snow at twenty dollars a snowfall. Ben is saving his money for a new printer, but when he is eighty dollars shy of the purchase price, he becomes impatient and cajoles a friend into loaning him the balance. In return, Ben assigns his friend the earnings from the next four snowfalls. The assignment is effective. However, a right that will arise from a future contract cannot be the subject of a present assignment.

Partial Assignments

An assignor may assign part of a contractual right, but only if the obligor can perform that part of his contractual obligation separately from the remainder of his obligation. Assignment of part of a payment due is always enforceable. However, if the obligor objects, neither the assignor nor the assignee may sue him unless both are party to the suit. Mrs. Robinson owes Ben one hundred dollars. Ben assigns fifty dollars of that sum to his friend. Mrs. Robinson is perplexed by this assignment and refuses to pay until the situation is explained to her satisfaction. The friend brings suit against Mrs. Robinson. The court cannot hear the case unless Ben is also a party to the suit. This ensures all parties to the dispute are present at once and avoids multiple lawsuits.

Successive Assignments

It may happen that an assignor assigns the same interest twice (see Figure 14.2 "Successive Assignments" ). With certain exceptions, the first assignee takes precedence over any subsequent assignee. One obvious exception is when the first assignment is ineffective or revocable. A subsequent assignment has the effect of revoking a prior assignment that is ineffective or revocable. Another exception: if in good faith the subsequent assignee gives consideration for the assignment and has no knowledge of the prior assignment, he takes precedence whenever he obtains payment from, performance from, or a judgment against the obligor, or whenever he receives some tangible evidence from the assignor that the right has been assigned (e.g., a bank deposit book or an insurance policy).

Some states follow the different English rule: the first assignee to give notice to the obligor has priority, regardless of the order in which the assignments were made. Furthermore, if the assignment falls within the filing requirements of UCC Article 9 (see Chapter 28 "Secured Transactions and Suretyship" ), the first assignee to file will prevail.

Figure 14.2 Successive Assignments

Assignor’s Warranties

An assignor has legal responsibilities in making assignments. He cannot blithely assign the same interests pell-mell and escape liability. Unless the contract explicitly states to the contrary, a person who assigns a right for value makes certain assignor’s warranties Promises, express or implied, made by an assignor to the assignee about the merits of the assignment. to the assignee: that he will not upset the assignment, that he has the right to make it, and that there are no defenses that will defeat it. However, the assignor does not guarantee payment; assignment does not by itself amount to a warranty that the obligor is solvent or will perform as agreed in the original contract. Mrs. Robinson owes Ben fifty dollars. Ben assigns this sum to his friend. Before the friend collects, Ben releases Mrs. Robinson from her obligation. The friend may sue Ben for the fifty dollars. Or again, if Ben represents to his friend that Mrs. Robinson owes him (Ben) fifty dollars and assigns his friend that amount, but in fact Mrs. Robinson does not owe Ben that much, then Ben has breached his assignor’s warranty. The assignor’s warranties may be express or implied.

Key Takeaway

Generally, it is OK for an obligee to assign the right to receive contractual performance from the obligor to a third party. The effect of the assignment is to make the assignee stand in the shoes of the assignor, taking all the latter’s rights and all the defenses against nonperformance that the obligor might raise against the assignor. But the obligor may agree in advance to waive defenses against the assignee, unless such waiver is prohibited by law.

There are some exceptions to the rule that contract rights are assignable. Some, such as personal rights, are not circumstances where the obligor’s duties would materially change, cases where assignability is forbidden by statute or public policy, or, with some limits, cases where the contract itself prohibits assignment. Partial assignments and successive assignments can happen, and rules govern the resolution of problems arising from them.

When the assignor makes the assignment, that person makes certain warranties, express or implied, to the assignee, basically to the effect that the assignment is good and the assignor knows of no reason why the assignee will not get performance from the obligor.

• If Able makes a valid assignment to Baker of his contract to receive monthly rental payments from Tenant, how is Baker’s right different from what Able’s was?
• Able made a valid assignment to Baker of his contract to receive monthly purchase payments from Carr, who bought an automobile from Able. The car had a 180-day warranty, but the car malfunctioned within that time. Able had quit the auto business entirely. May Carr withhold payments from Baker to offset the cost of needed repairs?
• Assume in the case in Exercise 2 that Baker knew Able was selling defective cars just before his (Able’s) withdrawal from the auto business. How, if at all, does that change Baker’s rights?
• Why are leases generally not assignable? Why are insurance contracts not assignable?

Assignment and other dealings

• Using your device

What does it do and why do I need it?

An assignment clause aims to control who performs a contract and who can receive benefits under the contract. It does not, however, mean that a party’s contractual obligations are transferred over, it simply means that the performance of such obligations can be delegated. This means that burdens cannot be assigned as a matter of law, but benefits can. 

Including such a clause is important if you wish to control who receives the benefit of your performance if you are the supplier, or if you are a customer, control who carries out the contract for you. This may be important to you, for instance, if you do not wish to deliver work to your competitors or you do not want a particular person in your supply chain.

If the contract is silent on assignment and other dealings, a party can normally assign, mortgage, charge or declare a trust over its rights under the contract, without the other party’s consent and use a subcontractor to perform (but not transfer) its contractual duties. In some cases, however, a restriction on subcontracting may be implied where personal performance is required for example.

In light of this, if the parties wish to restrict such abilities, they should do this expressly. Please note, however, a prohibition on assignment has no effect on assignment of a right to receive payment, this applies to many contracts for supply of goods, services or intangibles made between UK businesses on or after 31 December 2018. 

What should I look out for?

• Effect of an assignment breach - in most cases, a breach of an assignment restriction in the main contract may trigger termination rights or other remedies, may be valid between the assignor and assignee and it does not bind the original promisor who remains liable to the original promisee (the party receiving the benefit).
• Effect of a restriction of other dealings breach - if the wording specifically carves out restrictions on ‘mortgages, charges or trust of rights’ then it should be effective to stop the contracting party holding its rights in trust for a non-party. However, a restriction on an assignment/transfer alone might not have this effect. On the contrary, in relation to a subcontract, if a restriction was in place and there has been a breach, the subcontract is normally still valid, but the other party to the main contract may not be obliged to accept or pay for the subcontractor’s performance.
• Novation - if a party wants to actually transfer its obligations under the contract, as opposed to delegating their performance, it will need to do so by way of novation.
• Subcontracting of processing personal data - if, as part of subcontracting its obligations generally, the assigning/subcontracting party is subcontracting obligations to process personal data, it should note that the GDPR imposes conditions on sub-processing. The main contractor should check the data processing provisions and subcontracting provisions in the contract for provisions relating to sub-processing.
• Indemnities - in relation to subcontracting duties, the main contractor remains liable to the continuing party for the performance of any part of the contract that is still to be fulfilled. Therefore, a main contractor will therefore generally ask their subcontractor for an indemnity against any breach or failure to perform the contract. The indemnity will not usually cover liabilities incurred before the subcontracting took effect.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact Ben Taylor .

• Commercial law

Related insights

Post-paccar legislation to be introduced.

06 March 2024

The government has recently announced that it will introduce legislation to reverse the Supreme Court decision in PACCAR Inc & Ors -v- Competition Appeal Tribunal & Ors [2023] UKS...

Contentious Business Update - February 2024

08 February 2024

Welcome to our Contentious Business Update where we focus on some topical and interesting legal issues affecting businesses. We hope you find this edition informative and insightful...

Enforcing restrictive covenants – a practical example

05 February 2024

Many companies rely on restrictions, or 'restrictive covenants', in employment contracts to try to limit the damage caused when employees move to a competing business. They may, for example, seek to..

Interesting case on Interest

In a recent High Court case - Chedington Events Ltd v. Brake [2023] EWHC 2804 – the High Court made an unusual and interesting award in respect of pre-judgment interest, taking into account the...

UK ICO warns UK’s top websites on use of cookies

24 November 2023

On 21 November 2023, the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (the 'ICO') released a statement explaining that it has recently written to companies running many of the UK’s most visited websites...

Supreme Court Decision on Limitation: Don’t hide important facts!

21 November 2023

The Supreme Court has recently handed down its judgment in Canada Square Operations Ltd (Appellant) v Potter (Respondent) [2023] UKSC 41. The case is an important one as it has clarified the issue...

We provide advice on a wide range of commercial agreements from trading agreements, outsourcing and other trading contracts and specialist projects. We have specialist experience in healthcare, financial services, media, entertainment and sport, private equity and logistics. Our clients include a number of large listed and private companies, start-ups, financial institutions and public sector bodies.

You can trust the market knowledge of lawyers who understand your sector, and the pragmatic advice from people who take the time to get to know your business. Expect excellent client service, with close access to partners and experts.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Conventus Law

More results...

UK – Legal Terms Explained: Assignment.

April 18, 2023 by Rohin Pujari

What is assignment?

An assignment is the transfer of an interest from one party (“ assignor ”) to another (“ assignee ”). Assignment allows the assignor to transfer the benefit of a contract to the assignee. For example, the tenant of recently built office premises may transfer the benefit of a collateral warranty originally granted in its favour to a subsequent tenant.

Without express words, assignment usually involves an assignment of accrued and future rights. Clear words are required to assign only future rights under a contract ( Energy Works (Hull) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK and others  [2020] EWHC 2537 (TCC)).

Assignment in a construction context typically refers to a legal or equitable assignment (although assignment can also occur by other means, e.g. operation of law). A key difference between legal and equitable assignments is that, in the case of a legal assignment, the assignee may enforce any assigned rights in its own name. In contrast, following an equitable assignment, the assignee would need to join the assignor in any action brought to enforce its rights.

To take effect as a legal assignment under English law, an assignment must comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (“ LPA 1925 “). This requires the assignment to be: (i) in writing; (ii) absolute; and (iii) expressly notified in writing to the other party to the contract (“ debtor “). In practice, parties tend to effect a legal assignment by way of an assignment agreement or deed of assignment to ensure that these requirements are satisfied.

However, if the parties fail to meet any of the requirements set out in LPA 1925 the assignment will usually have equitable effect. Equitable assignments may arise orally or in writing, and whilst recommended, there is no need to notify the debtor, provided a clear intention to assign can be established. Neither legal nor equitable assignments generally require the debtor’s consent.

  Assignment v novation

Although both terms are sometimes used interchangeably, assignment should be distinguished from novation. The most notable difference is that assignment only transfers the benefit of a contract (e.g. a warranty that works have been carried out to the required standard), whereas a novation transfers both the benefit and the burden (e.g. an obligation to pay for a service). As novation also requires the consent of all parties, it will typically be effected by a tripartite agreement between the novating party, the party to whom the contract is to be novated, and the counterparty to the relevant contract.

  Some issues concerning assignment

• Restrictions on assignment  – Unless there is an express prohibition in the contract, the parties will usually be free to assign the benefit of a contract. However, many standard form building contracts, including the JCT Design and Build Contract, prohibit assignment, or allow it only subject to certain conditions. In this regard, a developer may seek to amend the contract to reduce any restrictions on their ability to assign. In contrast, a contractor may seek to limit any rights to assign, for example by specifying the number of permitted assignments. This is often linked to the contractor’s professional indemnity insurance terms which may provide for restricted cover in respect of successive assignments.
• Ineffective assignment where prohibited  – If a party purports to assign a right in contravention of an assignment clause, the assignment will only be effective as between the assignee and the assignor, and will not be enforceable against the debtor.
• Means of assignment  – A clause in a contract permitting assignment is not sufficient to effect an assignment. There must be a separate document or oral agreement to show the assignor’s intention to assign ( Allied Carpets Group Plc v Macfarlane (t/a Whicheloe Macfarlane Partnership)  [2002] EWHC 1155 (TCC)).

* This is an updated version of an article originally published as part of the ‘Legal Terms Explained’ series of  Construction Law .

For further information, please contact:

James Doe , Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills

[email protected]

Register for your monthly Asia legal updates from Conventus Law

Error: Contact form not found.

UK – New Rates And Limits For Employment Claims Come Into Effect On 6 April 2024.

Major Extension To Redundancy Protection For Employees In The UK.

Changes to the way the uk fundraising regulator reports on complaints data from charities..

CONVENTUS LAW

CONVENTUS DOCS CONVENTUS PEOPLE

3/f, Chinachem Tower 34-37 Connaught Road Central, Central, Hong Kong

[email protected]

English Law of Obligations module (LW31026)

Learn about contractual obligations and non-contractual obligations in English Law

The law of obligations encompasses both contract law and the law of tort. This module examines how English law differs from Scots law in contract law and the law of tort.

The main difference between the two systems is a concept known as 'consideration'. All contracts involve an exchange of promises that the law considers binding. English law has a very permissive but literal version of this idea in that each promise must have a counter-promise.

The Scots law of delict (tort) is not significantly different when it comes to negligence. But, there are significant differences in the areas of nuisance and defamation.

What you will learn

In this module you will:

• look at contract formation and interpretation
• learn about the situations leading to the contract being set aside
• learn about the remedies for breach of different types of terms and their implications in how contracts are drafted

By the end of the module, you will be able to:

• analyse problem situations relating to English contract law and the English law of tort

Assignments / assessment

• e.g. problem, case note or essay

This module does not have a final exam.

Assignment of Rights and Obligations Under a Contract: Everything You Need to Know

An assignment of rights and obligations under a contract occurs when a party assigns their contractual rights to a third party. 3 min read updated on January 01, 2024

Updated October 29, 2020:

An assignment of rights and obligations under a contract occurs when a party assigns their contractual rights to a third party. The benefit that the issuing party would have received from the contract is now assigned to the third party. The party appointing their rights is referred to as the assignor, while the party obtaining the rights is the assignee.

What Is an Assignment of Contract?

In an assignment contract, the assignor prefers that the assignee reverses roles and assumes the contractual rights and obligations as stated in the contract. Before this can occur, all parties to the original contract must be notified.

Contracts create duties and rights. An obligor is the party who is legally or contractually obliged to provide a benefit or payment to another, while an obligation is owed to the obligee. The obligee transfers a right to obtain a benefit owed by the obligor to a third party. At this point, the obligee becomes an assignor. An assignor is the party that actually creates an assignment. 

The party that creates an assignment is both the obligee and a transferor. The assignee receives the right to acquire the obligations of the promisor/obligor. The assignor can assign any right to the obligor unless:

• Doing so will materially alter the obligation
• It's materially burdening
• It decreases the value of the original contract
• It increases their risk
• Public policy or a statute makes it illegal
• The contract prevents assignment

Assignments are important in business financing, especially in factoring . A factor is someone who purchases a right to receive a benefit from someone else.

How Assignments Work

The specific language used in the contract will determine how the assignment plays out. For example, one contract may prohibit assignment, while another contract may require that all parties involved agree to it before proceeding. Remember, an assignment of contract does not necessarily alleviate an assignor from all liability. Many contracts include an assurance clause guaranteeing performance. In other words, the initial parties to the contract guarantee the assignee will achieve the desired goal.

When Assignments Will Not Be Enforced

The following situations indicate when an assignment of a contract is not enforced:

• The contract specifically prohibits assignment
• The assignment drastically changes the expected outcome
• The assignment is against public policy or illegal
• The contract contains a no-assignment clause
• The assignment is for a future right that only would be attainable in a contract in the future
• The contract hasn't been finalized or written yet

Delegation vs. Assignment

Occasionally, one party in a contract will desire to pass on or delegate their responsibility to a third party without creating an assignment contract. Some duties are so specific in nature they cannot be delegated. Adding a clause in the contract to prevent a party from delegating their responsibilities and duties is highly recommended.

Characteristics of Assignments

An assignment involves the transfer by an assignor of some or all of its rights to receive performance under the contract to an assignee. The assignee then receives all the benefits of the assigned rights. The assignment doesn't eliminate or reduce the assignor's performance commitments to the nonassigning party.

Three Steps to Follow if You Want to Assign a Contract

There are three main steps to take if you're looking to assign a contract:

• Make sure the current contract does not contain an anti-assignment clause
• Officially execute the assignment by transferring the parties' obligations and rights
• Notify the obligor of the changes made

Once the obligor is notified, the assignor will effectively be relieved of liability.

Anti-Assignment Clauses

If you'd prefer not to allow the party you're doing business with to assign a contract, you may be able to prevent this from occurring by clearly stating anti-assignment clauses in the original contract. The three most common anti-assignment clauses are:

• Consent required for assignment
• Consent not needed for new owners or affiliates
• Consent not unreasonably withheld

Based on these three clauses, no party in the contract is allowed to delegate or assign any obligations or rights without prior written consent from the other parties. Any delegation or assignment in violation of this passage shall be deemed void. It is not possible to write an anti-assignment clause that goes against an assignment that is issued or ordered by a court.

If you need help with an assignment of rights and obligations under a contract, you can  post your job  on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

• Assignment Contract Law
• Legal Assignment
• Assignment Law
• Assignment of Rights Example
• What Is the Definition of Assigns
• Partial Assignment of Contract
• Assignment Of Contracts
• Consent to Assignment
• Delegation vs Assignment
• Assignment of Contract Rights

• Practical Law

If a contract is silent on assignment does the law imply that the assignment can only take place with consent?

Practical law resource id a-014-2191  (approx. 3 pages).

• General Contract and Boilerplate
• United Kingdom

English law assignments of part of a debt: Practical considerations

United Kingdom |  Publication |  December 2019

Enforcing partially assigned debts against the debtor

The increase of supply chain finance has driven an increased interest in parties considering the sale and purchase of parts of debts (as opposed to purchasing debts in their entirety).

While under English law part of a debt can be assigned, there is a general requirement that the relevant assignee joins the assignor to any proceedings against the debtor, which potentially impedes the assignee’s ability to enforce against the debtor efficiently.

This note considers whether this requirement may be dispensed with in certain circumstances.

Can you assign part of a debt?

Under English law, the beneficial ownership of part of a debt can be assigned, although the legal ownership cannot. 1  This means that an assignment of part of a debt will take effect as an equitable assignment instead of a legal assignment.

Joining the assignor to proceedings against the debtor

While both equitable and legal assignments are capable of removing the assigned asset from the insolvency estate of the assignor, failure to obtain a legal assignment and relying solely on an equitable assignment may require the assignee to join the relevant assignor as a party to any enforcement action against the debtor.

An assignee of part of a debt will want to be able to sue a debtor in its own name and, if it is required to join the assignor to proceedings against the debtor, this could add additional costs and delays if the assignor was unwilling to cooperate. 2

Kapoor v National Westminster Bank plc

English courts have, in recent years, been pragmatic in allowing an assignee of part of a debt to sue the debtor in its own name without the cooperation of the assignor.

In Charnesh Kapoor v National Westminster Bank plc, Kian Seng Tan 3 the court held that an equitable assignee of part of a debt is entitled in its own right and name to bring proceedings for the assigned debt. The equitable assignee will usually be required to join the assignor to the proceedings in order to ensure that the debtor is not exposed to double recovery, but the requirement is a procedural one that can be dispensed with by the court.

The reason for the requirement that an equitable assignee joins the assignor to proceedings against the debtor is not that the assignee has no right which it can assert independently, but that the debtor ought to be protected from the possibility of any further claim by the assignor who should therefore be bound by the judgment.

Application of Kapoor

It is a common feature of supply chain finance transactions that the assigned debt (or part of the debt) is supported by an independent payment undertaking. Such independent payment undertaking makes it clear that the debtor cannot raise defences and that it is required to pay the relevant debt (or part of a debt) without set-off or counterclaim. In respect of an assignee of part of an independent payment undertaking which is not disputed and has itself been equitably assigned to the assignee, we believe that there are good grounds that an English court would accept that the assignee is allowed to pursue an action directly against the debtor without needing the assignor to be joined, as this is likely to be a matter of procedure only, not substance.

This analysis is limited to English law and does not consider the laws of any other jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding the helpful clarifications summarised in Kapoor, as many receivables financing transactions involve a number of cross-border elements, assignees should continue to consider the effect of the laws (and, potentially court procedures) of any other relevant jurisdictions on the assignment of part of a debt even where the sale of such partial debt is completed under English law.

Legal title cannot be assigned in respect of part of a debt. A partial assignment would not satisfy the requirements for a legal assignment of section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

If an assignor does not consent to being joined as a plaintiff in proceedings against the debtor it would be necessary to join the assignor as a co-defendant. However, where an assignor has gone into administration or liquidation, there may be a statutory prohibition on joining such assignor as a co-defendant (without the leave of the court or in certain circumstances the consent of the administrator).

[2011] EWCA Civ 1083

• Financial institutions

Recent publications

Publication

Singapore: Competition law fact sheet

Overview of the main provisions of the Competition Act, and discussion of the enforcement regime and recent enforcement trends.

Global | April 15, 2024

Recent interest rate increases could trigger unexpected arbitrage liabilities for bond issuers

For many years, investment yields were so low that the arbitrage rules applicable to tax-exempt bonds were for the most part more theoretical than practical.

United States | April 12, 2024

Preparing for change: How businesses can thrive under the EU's AI Act

On February 2, 2024, the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the European Union confirmed that the Committee of Permanent Representatives had signed the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Regulation, referred to as the AI Act. Approval by the EU Parliament followed on 13 March 2024, and the AI Act is likely to appear in the EU’s Official Journal around May 2024. The AI Act aims to establish a stringent legal framework governing the development, marketing, and utilisation of artificial intelligence within the region, thereby marking a significant advancement in the regulation of this burgeoning domain.

Global | April 12, 2024

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .

© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023

• Canada (English)
• Canada (Français)
• United States
• Deutschland (Deutsch)
• Germany (English)
• The Netherlands
• Türkiye
• United Kingdom
• South Africa
• Hong Kong SAR
• Marshall Islands
• Nordic region

Primary tabs

Assignment is a legal term whereby an individual, the “assignor,” transfers rights, property, or other benefits to another known as the “ assignee .”   This concept is used in both contract and property law.  The term can refer to either the act of transfer or the rights /property/benefits being transferred.

Contract Law   

Under contract law, assignment of a contract is both: (1) an assignment of rights; and (2) a delegation of duties , in the absence of evidence otherwise.  For example, if A contracts with B to teach B guitar for $50, A can assign this contract to C.  That is, this assignment is both: (1) an assignment of A’s rights under the contract to the $50; and (2) a delegation of A’s duty to teach guitar to C.  In this example, A is both the “assignor” and the “delegee” who d elegates the duties to another (C), C is known as the “ obligor ” who must perform the obligations to the assignee , and B is the “ assignee ” who is owed duties and is liable to the “ obligor ”.

(1) Assignment of Rights/Duties Under Contract Law

There are a few notable rules regarding assignments under contract law.  First, if an individual has not yet secured the contract to perform duties to another, he/she cannot assign his/her future right to an assignee .  That is, if A has not yet contracted with B to teach B guitar, A cannot assign his/her rights to C.  Second, rights cannot be assigned when they materially change the obligor ’s duty and rights.  Third, the obligor can sue the assignee directly if the assignee does not pay him/her.  Following the previous example, this means that C ( obligor ) can sue B ( assignee ) if C teaches guitar to B, but B does not pay C $50 in return.

            (2) Delegation of Duties

If the promised performance requires a rare genius or skill, then the delegee cannot delegate it to the obligor.  It can only be delegated if the promised performance is more commonplace.  Further, an obligee can sue if the assignee does not perform.  However, the delegee is secondarily liable unless there has been an express release of the delegee.  That is, if B does want C to teach guitar but C refuses to, then B can sue C.  If C still refuses to perform, then B can compel A to fulfill the duties under secondary liability.

Lastly, a related concept is novation , which is when a new obligor substitutes and releases an old obligor.  If novation occurs, then the original obligor’s duties are wiped out. However, novation requires an original obligee’s consent .  

Property Law

Under property law, assignment typically arises in landlord-tenant situations.  For example, A might be renting from landlord B but wants to another party (C) to take over the property.   In this scenario, A might be able to choose between assigning and subleasing the property to C.  If assigning , A would be giving C the entire balance of the term, with no reversion to anyone whereas if subleasing , A would be giving C for a limited period of the remaining term.  Significantly, under assignment C would have privity of estate with the landlord while under a sublease, C would not. 

[Last updated in May of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

• business law
• landlord & tenant
• property & real estate law
• trusts, inheritances & estates
• wex definitions

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• Client Services
• Find People
• >  Germany
• Log in / Register

The key English contract law cases of 2020

How would you like your page printed?

• Print web page
• Print as a PDF

It has been a most unusual year. In response to the global pandemic, the Cabinet Office issued Guidance in the summer, encouraging contractual parties to act “responsibly and fairly” in the performance and enforcement of their contracts.

In a similar vein, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law (“ BIICL ”) has published three Concept Notes, the first of which noted that a plethora of disputes from the pandemic would be destructive to good contractual outcomes and the effective operation of markets. However, the BIICL also recognised that there are some cases which do require the involvement of the courts.

Inevitably then, there have been disputes which have made it to the courts this year: some which started before the pandemic hit; some borne of the pandemic itself (notably, the recent insurance business interruption case, which you can read about here   1 , and a case concerning material adverse effect clauses, which you can read about here ); and others that presumably just could not be resolved consensually. What can we learn from the decisions in these disputes? In this briefing we review this year’s important contract cases and consider what commercial parties can learn from them.

1. At the time of writing, we note that the Supreme Court heard a leapfrog appeal from the decision of the High Court from 16-19 November 2020. The judgment is pending.

Implied duties of good faith: plead at your peril.

Last year we noted that the law was still in a state of flux. One year on, is it any clearer when a contract will be subject to an implied duty of good faith? It’s fair to say the law still “has not yet reached a stage of settled clarity” ( Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd v Lufthansa [2020] EWHC 1789 ) with a continuing split between the two visions of this duty, namely:

• that there is a class of “relational contracts” that are subject to a duty of good faith as a matter of law ( Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Ltd [2020] EWHC 1581 ), or
• that such a duty will only arise where the strict tests for the implication of terms in fact are satisfied ( Taqa Bratani Ltd & Ors v Rockrose UKCS8 LLC [2020] EWHC 58 ).

Around these central themes, there have been various clarifications to the law. For example, in Morley v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2020] EWHC 88 (Ch) the High Court rejected a borrower’s argument that the bank had an implied duty to act in good faith towards it under a loan agreement. The Court held that this was not a relational contract of any kind but an ordinary loan facility agreement. The bank’s decision to call in the loan was the exercise of a contractual right, not a discretion (subject to the Braganza duty). The bank’s power to obtain a revaluation of the charged assets and its power to charge a default interest rate were discretions which had to be exercised for purposes connected to the bank’s commercial interests and not so as to vex the borrower maliciously (following Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2018] EWCA Civ 355 ). On the facts, they had been exercised properly.

Similarly, the courts continue to treat references to good faith in some clauses as evidence that a wider overarching duty of good faith should not be implied into the agreement (see Russell v Cartwright [2020] EWHC 41 (Ch) ).

Perhaps most important is the nature of any duty of good faith. While this is sometimes described in broad terms, for example to “adhere to the spirit of the contract, to observe reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing, to be faithful to the agreed common purpose, and to act consistently with the justified expectations of [the other party]” ( CPC Group Ltd v Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company [2010] EWHC 1535 ), the courts have recently made it very clear that the assertion that a party has not acted in good faith is a serious allegation.

In Essex County Council v UBB Waste (No. 3) [2020] EWHC 2387 (TCC) the courts suggested this was, put colloquially, an allegation of “sharp practice” . To make such an allegation without proper foundation was out of the norm and justified an order for costs on an indemnity basis.

What does this mean for you?

Good faith is still an evolving area in English law. Until we have greater clarity, it is worth considering whether your contract might be classified as “relational” or whether a duty of good faith might arise under the rules for the implication of terms in fact. In either case, you might want to address the matter expressly. Finally, allegations of a breach of good faith are serious and should not be made without foundation, so plead at your peril.

Excusing liability

In times of crisis, contractual parties may have even greater reason to examine those parts of their contracts which may exclude or limit liability or offer defences to breach (such as force majeure provisions).

Force majeure and a variety of limitations

A recent dispute concerning the 2011 riots in London put all of these provisions under the spotlight. The High Court found that a warehouse operator had failed to use reasonable skill and care to protect the contents of the warehouse (CDs and DVDs), which were destroyed by fire during the riots. Could the operator rely on any contractual terms to excuse or limit its liability?

It was not able to rely on the force majeure clause since the fire was not a circumstance “beyond [its] reasonable control” . The Court found that, if it had acted reasonably, it could and should have prevented the fire.

Since the claims (for loss of profits, business interruption costs and increased cost of working, suffered as a result of the fire) were all direct (in that they were exactly the type of loss that one would expect to result from the breach), the clause excluding liability for “indirect and consequential loss” did not apply. A cap on liability for damage to goods was no protection either as the claims were not for damage to the goods themselves. However, an overall – aggregate – cap on all liability (of £5 million) was effective.

What does this mean for you? These types of clauses are very topical in the current uncertain times and always need to be drafted carefully. This case reminds us that the position of commercial parties will depend upon the exact terms of the contracts, applied to the facts of the situation.

Where can you read more? See 2 Entertain Video Ltd & Ors v Sony DADC Europe Ltd [2020] EWHC 972 (TCC) .

Indirect and consequential loss

Another recent case highlights just how useful an exclusion of “indirect and consequential loss” could have been, if only it had been included.

A contractor terminated a construction contract for breach by its employer (on the basis that the latter had failed to provide a prepared site for the water treatment plant that was to be built). The Board of the Privy Council held that the contractor was entitled to recover, as damages for breach, the loss of profits that it would have made under an operation and maintenance contract for the same plant had it been built. These losses were not too remote (and fell within the second limb of Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC Exch J70) as they were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties to the construction contract when that contract was entered into (on the same day as the operation and maintenance agreement).

What does this mean for you?  When entering into related contracts, it is vital to consider the exact relationship between them, including the consequences of a termination, breach or force majeure scenario arising under one of them and the knock-on effects this might have. Exclusion of liability under a related contract might be achieved by an exclusion of indirect and consequential loss (depending upon the specific drafting) or expressly.

Where can you read more? See AG of the Virgin Islands v GWA [2020] UKPC 18 . 

Loss of goodwill

It is also relatively common to see clauses exclude liability for “loss of goodwill”. The Court of Appeal decided that, in a commercial context, the ordinary legal meaning of “goodwill” was the good name and public reputation of the business concerned. If a contract intends the term to have an unusual or technical meaning (such as the accounting concept of goodwill) then that should be spelt out expressly.

This decision highlights how important it is to agree the meaning of (and clearly define) terms in agreements, particularly where something different from the ordinary legal meaning is intended.

Where can you read more? See Primus International v Triumph Controls [2020] EWCA Civ 1228 .

What is a reasonable condition of consent (and what is not)?

In a recent decision, the High Court considered the case law on contractual consent provisions, which often state that one party “shall not unreasonably withhold consent” to whatever is being requested.

If we call the party asking for consent, Party A; and the party being asked to give consent, Party B, the Court found that the authorities drew the following distinction:

• while it may be legitimate for Party B to impose a condition to protect or compensate it for the impairment of a benefit it enjoys under the contract which would result from giving consent,
• that is completely different to imposing a condition which would impair a right which Party A currently enjoys under the contract.

The contract was for the onshore pipeline transportation of hydrocarbons produced in the North Sea. The producer (Party A in our analogy) requested consent to amend its estimated production profile for transportation for the period from January 2021 to December 2040. The pipeline owner (Party B) stated that it was only willing to consent to the amendment if Party A agreed to an increase in the tariff payable under the agreement. Contractually, Party B was not entitled to “unreasonably withhold” its consent to the amendment. Was Party B therefore acting contractually or non-contractually by seeking to impose a tariff rise as a condition to giving consent?

The Court found that Party A was both entitled and obliged to tender its hydrocarbons for transportation at the contractual tariff for the duration of the agreement, which would continue until terminated on one of the contractual bases set out in the agreement. The terms did not limit that entitlement and obligation to the period up to 2020. In those circumstances, it would be inconsistent with the terms and scheme of the agreement if Party B was entitled to make its consent to the amendment conditional on a fundamental revision of the parties’ bargain in the form of a new tariff. Party B was acting non-contractually.

This decision clarifies that a condition might be reasonable as a prerequisite to giving consent (e.g. to make up for something lost by the consenting party as a result of the change). However, a party cannot use a consent request as an opportunity to renegotiate terms or impose an unrelated change on the other party. It may be preferable to make this clear in the drafting of any relevant provision, by stating that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld or delayed, or made subject to additional conditions.

Where can you read more? See Apache North Sea v INEOS FPS Limited [2020] EWHC 2081 (Comm) .

How will the Courts determine the law applicable to an arbitration clause?

The Supreme Court recently provided the answer to this question in a landmark decision.

An arbitration clause is generally regarded as legally distinct from the main agreement in which it is contained (and the Rome I Regulation excludes arbitration and choice of court clauses from its scope). In England, therefore, common law conflict of laws rules apply to determine the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. Under those rules that will be: (i) the law expressly or impliedly chosen by the parties; or (ii) in the absence of such choice, the law “most closely connected” to the arbitration agreement.

Where the parties have not specified the law applicable to the arbitration agreement, but they have chosen the law to govern the contract as a whole, this choice will generally also apply to the arbitration agreement, rather than the law of the seat of the arbitration (as the Court of Appeal had held). But where the parties have made no choice of law to govern the arbitration agreement, either specifically or by choosing the governing law of the contract, the closest connection test will, in general, lead to the arbitration agreement being governed by the law of the seat of arbitration.

The potential for issues regarding what the applicable law of an arbitration clause is arise most frequently where the law governing the main contract and the place of the seat do not “match”. To remove the room for debate, parties, where the seat of arbitration is in England and the law of the contract is not English, therefore frequently consider using an express choice of law to govern the arbitration clause. Often, this is in favour of the law governing the main contract (the benefits of consistency with that law being something touched upon by the Supreme Court in its judgment). That approach should not change. The Supreme Court’s clarification of this area is welcome but is a general interpretative approach. Therefore, in such cases, an express designation still carries the value of some increased certainty (it will, of course, always be necessary to ensure the clause is properly drafted and works under the chosen law).

Where can you read more? See Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS (Respondent) v OOO Insurance Company Chubb (Appellant) [2020] UKSC 38 , and, for our ArbitrationLinks coverage see here .

What stays and what goes in assignment and novation?

The High Court held that an assignment by a contractor to an employer of “ the subcontract ” was an assignment of both (a) accrued rights, and (b) future rights under the subcontract. This meant that when the employer claimed damages in the sum of £133 million from the contractor, the contractor was left without a contractual right to seek a direct remedy from the subcontractor (in principle, it would be able to claim contribution from the subcontractor under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, but this would have to be considered, alongside the effect of any relevant limitation or exclusion provisions, at full trial). The Court also held that the assignment did not amount to a novation, so that the contractor’s obligations under the subcontract had not been transferred to the employer.

It’s imperative to think – in advance and before agreeing to do so – what the possible effects of a transfer of rights might be, so that you are not left without a clear remedy, should that be needed. The decision also contains a handy summary of some of the key aspects of assignment and novation:

Assignment:

• Subject to any express restrictions, a party to a contract can assign the benefit of a contract without the consent of the other party to the contract.
• The burden of a contract (the obligations under it) cannot be assigned but the principle of conditional benefit can apply so as to impose on the contractual assignee a positive obligation where such obligation is inextricably linked to the benefit assigned.
• In the absence of any clear contrary intention, reference to assignment of the contract by the parties is understood to mean assignment of the benefit of both accrued and future rights.
• It is possible to assign future rights only, but clear words are needed for that.
• Novation occurs when the original contract between A and B is extinguished and replaced by the creation of a new contract between A and C.
• Novation requires the consent of all parties to the original and new contract. Consent can be given in the original contract, but clear words are needed.
• The terms of the new contract must be sufficiently certain to be enforceable.
• In every case the court must construe the contractual arrangements to give effect to the expressed intentions of the parties, using the established rules of construction.

Where can you read more? See Energy Works (Hull) Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited and another [2020] EWHC 2537 (TCC) .

Notices: the devil in the detail

A share purchase agreement provided that the sellers would pay the buyer an amount equal to any tax liability which arose in certain circumstances, provided that, when making a claim, the buyer provided written notice stating “ in reasonable detail ” the matter which gave rise to the claim, the nature of such claim and (so far as reasonably practical) the amount claimed. The buyer gave notice of a claim to the sellers, referring to an investigation begun by the relevant tax authorities and gave a chronology of key milestones. Was this enough?

The High Court noted that the “reasonable detail” requirement amounted to an obligation to provide sufficient information so that the sellers, acting reasonably, knew what matter gave rise to the claim as well as the nature of the claim and, if reasonably practical, the amount. On the facts, the notice was insufficient. It contained no indication of the relevant facts, events or circumstances giving rise to the claim. Reference to the tax investigation was insufficient, and did not import all the tax authority’s comments and allegations, even if they were known to the sellers’ representatives. There had to be some indication of how the claim arose out of the facts identified.

Requirements to provide details usually mean that more, rather than less, should be included. It might help to consider what the purpose of the notification is and what it is that the recipient will need to know in order to respond or take a matter forward.

Where can you read more? See Dodika Ltd & Ors v United Luck Group Holdings [2020] EWHC 2101 (Comm) .

Waiver by election: understanding the boundaries

Rights can sometimes be lost by waiver by election: where a party has alternative, inconsistent rights, has knowledge of the facts which give rise to them and acts in a way which is only consistent with its having chosen to rely on one of them, it will be taken to have waived the other right ( Kammins Ballrooms Co Ltd v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Ltd [1971] AC 850 ). This explains why a party who communicates unequivocally an intention to continue with performance thereby loses the right to terminate a contract (instead, it is taken to have affirmed the contract).

A recent decision of the Privy Council is an important, and topical, illustration of the boundaries of the concept of waiver by election and highlights that it isn’t always applicable.

The parties entered into a fuel supply agreement against the backdrop of a potential closure of a refinery which supplied petroleum to the seller. The seller had a specific contractual right in a “Performance Relief” clause (effectively, a force majeure clause) to withhold, reduce or suspend deliveries to the extent it thought fit where necessitated by, amongst other things, the closure of the refinery.

When the refinery gave notice to the seller that it was closing, the seller notified the buyer but carried on supplying fuel, purchased and shipped from elsewhere while negotiations took place between the parties (as the seller sought a price increase to offset its higher costs). When these negotiations broke down, the seller sought to rely on the clause. The buyer argued that the seller’s rights had been “exhausted” after the seller had continued making deliveries. The Board of the Privy Council disagreed: waiver by election did not apply here. The seller’s right to claim performance relief did not present the seller with a binary, all-or-nothing choice between, on the one hand, putting an end to all the parties’ obligations or, on the other hand, treating all those obligations as still binding. Instead, it had a range of options: at one end of the scale, the seller might merely delay a delivery of fuel; at the other extreme, the seller might decide to cease all further deliveries under the contract, as eventually happened.

In situations where a party is faced with deciding whether to exercise a contractual right or not, whether taking one course of action will constitute a “waiver” of its other right(s) will ultimately turn on whether the rights are truly inconsistent with each other. Parties who want to make it clear that any action they are taking is to be without prejudice to their other rights should say so expressly, in writing. It should also be kept in mind that in these types of situations, estoppel can be relevant  – for example, if the seller had unequivocally represented it would not withhold deliveries under the supply agreement despite the closure of the refinery, it might have lost its right to performance relief by waiver by estoppel. There was no argument, however, that this was so in this case.

Where can you read more? See Delta Petroleum v BVI Electricity Corporation [2020] UKPC 23 .

Download your copy of the report:

Download >.

Key Contacts

Close  ×

You will need to log in or register to view the content

Linklaters user? Sign In

• 01. Your details
• 02. Your organisation details

Information collected as part of the registration process will be used to set up and manage your account and record your contact preferences.

Further details about how we collect and use your personal data on the Knowledge Portal, including information on your rights, are set out in our Global Privacy Notice  and Cookie Notice .

Reset password

If you were registered to the previous version of our Knowledge Portal, you will need to re-register to access our content.