assignment indian law

COMMERCIAL LAW BLOG

Research & Updates

Sub-contracting and Assignment : Resolving the Legal Conundrum

The performance of a contract may require third party involvement towards the fulfilment of obligations under a contract. In certain specific circumstances, the contracting parties may decide to “sub-contract” or “assign” their rights and obligations to a third party depending upon the nature of the contract.

In common parlance, sub-contracting and assignment are used interchangeably, however, a significant difference lies between the two when one examines the terms from a legal stand point. This post aims to discuss the concept of Sub-Contracting and Assignment and explains the key difference between the two concepts.

Sub-contracting

Sub-contracting refers to the delegation of certain duties and obligations by contracting parties to a third party, i.e. a sub-contractor who aids in the performance of the contract. According to the Black’s Law Dictionary, a sub-contract is “where a person has contracted for the performance of certain work and he, in turn, engages a third party to perform the whole or part of that which is included in the original contract, his agreement with such third person is called a subcontract and such person is called a subcontractor .” [1] A subcontractor could be a company, self-employed professionals or an agency undertaking to fulfil obligations under a contract.

Sub-contracting is generally undertaken in complex projects where the contract has a prolonged life cycle or multiple components for completion of a project, for instance, infrastructure contracts, construction contracts, renewable energy contracts or certain information technology-related contracts. However, the rights and duties of the sub-contractor under the sub-contracting agreement are relatively similar to that of the principal contractor in the main agreement.

Furthermore, while drafting a contract, one must ensure to incorporate a clause on sub-contracting which clearly spells out that parties to the contract shall sub-contract the rights and obligations only after seeking prior written consent from the other party. The sub-contracting arrangement maybe two-fold, depending upon the nature of the main contract:

Primarily, the basic idea behind delegation of the obligations to a sub-contractor is to ensure greater flexibility in the performance of the contract. However, it is imperative to enter into a sub-contractor’s agreement that specifies all the details of the work to be performed by the subcontractor, including optimum time required to accomplish the task, payment of charges to the subcontractor, termination of the agreement, etc.

While subcontracting is time-saving and cost efficient, it may result into legal issues between the contracting parties. For instance, issues may arise with respect to the payment conditions where the payment to sub-contractor is contingent upon or linked to the principal contractor receiving its payment from the employer. Further, the courts in India have always upheld the principle of privity of contract between employer and the principal contractor on the one hand and between the principal contractor and sub-contractor(s) on the other. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Zonal General Manager, Ircon International Ltd. v. Vinay Heavy Equipments [2] upheld that in the absence of a back-to-back covenant in the main contract, “ the distinct and sole liability of the middle-contractor is presumed and that the rules in relation to privity of contract will mean that the jural relationship between the employer and the main contractor on the one hand and between the sub-contractor and the main contractor on the other will be quite distinct and separate” . Therefore, in order to avoid ambiguities and future legal squabbles, careful consideration must be given while drafting specific terms and obligation that will pass down the contractual chain.

Assignment of contract refers to an act of transferring contractual rights and liabilities under the contract to a third party with other party’s concurrence. Section 37 of the India Contract Act, 1872 (“ Contract Act ”) enables the contracting parties to dispense with the performance of a contract by way of an assignment. While the principle of assignment is well recognized under Indian law, it derives its origin from the English law.

Assignment of rights is a “complete transfer of rights to receive benefits” accruing to one party under a contract. Performance of a contract may be assigned as long as the contracting parties provide their consent towards the assignment. However, the act of assignment needs to be looked at from the perspective of the contracting parties. Essentially, there are three parties involved, namely, the assignor, assignee and obligor.

An important principle affecting assignments is that the burden or liability under a contract cannot be assigned. Essentially, the moot question that often arises is with respect to assignment of “rights” vis à vis assignment of “obligations”. The Supreme Court in the case of Khardah Company Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. (India) Private Limited [3] categorically distinguished between assignment of “rights” and “obligations”. The court upheld that, “ an assignment of a contract might result by transfer either of the rights or of the obligations thereunder. But there is a well-recognised distinction between these two classes of assignments. As a rule, obligations under a contract cannot be assigned except with the consent of the promisee, and when such consent is given, it is really a novation resulting in substitution of liabilities. On the other hand rights under a contract are assignable unless the contract is personal in its nature (or) the rights are incapable of assignment either under the law or under an agreement between the parties” . Primarily, the court clarified that obtaining prior consent to assign “obligations” under a contract would be considered as novation as it will result into substitution of liabilities and obligations to the assignee. Moreover, introduction of a new party into an existing contract will result into novation of a contract i.e. creation of a new contract between original party and new party. As the courts have interpreted that transfer of obligations can be undertaken through novation, the assignment clause in a contract must clearly deal with novation, if the intention is to transfer obligations.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in the case of Gopalbhai Manusudhan [4] , reaffirmed that whenever there is a case of assignment or even the transfer of the obligations, it must be acclaimed that there is the presence of the consent of the parties. Without the consent of the parties, the assignment will be not considered valid. In addition to upholding the legal point, this ruling also indicates that before establishing a commercial contract, the parties must consider the different complications of contracts, such as the objective of the contract and the presence of an assignability clause in the agreement.

Therefore, the judicial trend in India has time and again reiterated and laid down that rights under contract can be assigned unless (a) the contract is personal in nature i.e. requires personal engagement of a specific person or (b) the rights are incapable of assignment either under law or under an agreement between the parties. In the case of Robinson v. Davison [5] , the defendant’s wife pledged to perform piano at a concert on a specific date. Due to “her illness”, she was unable to fulfil her obligation, which was to play the piano at an event. The contract in this instance was ruled to be solely dependent on the defendant’s wife’s good health and personal talent, and the defendant’s wife’s illness led the contract to be void. Further, the court ruled that the defendant could not be held liable for damages as a result of the contract’s non-performance. The wife could not assign her right/obligation to a third party because the contract was founded on the “promisor’s expertise” in the aforesaid case.

While assignment is a boiler plate clause, it requires careful consideration on a case-to-case basis. For instance, in real estate transactions, a buyer would insist on retaining the right to assign the “agreement to sell” in favour of a nominee (a company, affiliate or any other third party), in order to facilitate final conveyance in favour of the intended buyer. Similarly, in lending transactions, a borrower will be prohibited from assigning rights under the contract, however, the lender will retain absolute and free right to assign/sell loan portfolios to other lenders or securitisation company.

The apex court has time and again reiterated that the best policy is to unequivocally state the intent with respect to assignment in the agreement to avoid litigation in the future. The contracting parties must expressly specify the rights and obligations stemming from assignment under a contract. Any agreed limitation on such an assignment must be expressly laid down in the contract to avoid adverse consequences.

For a person drafting a contract, it is important to understand these subtle differences, between sub-contracting and assignment. While “sub-contracting” is delegating or outsourcing the liabilities and obligations, “assignment” is literally transferring the obligations. It will be not fallacious to say that an “assignment” transfers the entire legal obligation to perform to the party assigned the obligation whereas, subcontracting leaves the primary responsibility to perform the obligation with the contracting party.

Archana Balasubramanian (Partner), Vaishnavi Vyas (Associate)

[1] Black’s Law Dictionary 4th ed. (St. Paul: West, 1951).

[2] 2006 SCC OnLine Mad 1107

[3] MANU/SC/0428/1962

[4] Kapilaben & Ors. v Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Seth through POA Gopalbhai Manusudhan 2019 (10) SCJ 269

[5] (1871) LR 6 Ex 269

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

This website does not provide any legal advice and is for information purposes only. Any reliance on information or opinion contained herein would be against the advice of the administrators of this website and entirely at risk and cost of the recipient or user of this information. No attorney-client relationship is formed through this website, directly or indirectly. Opinions are of authors and does not necessarily bind the administrators or owners of the website or the law firm.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Subscribe Subscribed
Copy shortlink
Report this content
View post in Reader
Manage subscriptions
Collapse this bar

Constitution of India
Indian Penal Code
Indian Contract Act
Indian Evidence Act
Transfer of Property
Intellectual Property Rights
Consumer Protection
Right to Information
Human Rights
Voice of Women
Expert Corner
Case Summary
Legal Maxims
Internships
General Knowledge
Submit Post

Assignment of Contract

An agreement enforceable by law becomes a contract. A contract involves both rights and obligations because a contract is an agreement enforceable by law. An agreement involves promises from both sides, and thus, there is the creation of both rights and obligations. For instance, X promises to sell his car to Y, and Y promises to pay Rs. 5,00,000 for his car. This constitutes a valid contract between X and Y. Here, the right on the part of X is to get Rs. 5,00,000 as consideration for selling his car, and the obligation for X is to deliver the car to Y as consideration for Rs. 5,00,000 paid to X by Y for selling his car.

Similarly, the right on the part of Y is to get the car delivered as consideration for Rs. 5,00,000 paid, and the obligation for Y is to pay Rs. 5,00,000 as consideration for the vehicle. If either X or Y fails to discharge their responsibility, there will be a breach of contract. In this way, a contract leads to the creation of both rights and obligations for both parties.

Assignment of contract refers to transferring contractual rights and liabilities under the contract to the third party with or without the other party’s concurrence. For instance, X owes Y Rs. 1,000, and Y owes Z the same amount. In this case, Y is under obligation to pay Rs. One thousand to Z and has the right to receive Rs. 1,000 from Z. In this case if Y asks Z to directly pay Rs. 1,000 to X, and if X accepts the same, there will be an assignment of Y’s right to Z. But, if in a similar situation, instead of transferring his ownership, Y would have transferred any of his obligations, then it would amount to novation. Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, enables the parties to dispense the performance by way of the contract’s Assignment. Apart from conforming with the Indian Contract Act, 1872, there are exceptional circumstances where the contract assignment must be duly stamped in conformity with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

The common law system did give effect to three kinds of transactions, viz., acknowledgment, novation, and power of attorney, which to some extent did work of an assignment. Under the Indian Contract Law, any form of contract can be assigned as long as consent is involved in the Assignment. The consent of the ‘promisee’ is necessary for assigning any obligation under the contract. There are three parties involved in contracts of Assignment, namely, the assignor, assignee, and obligor. The working and application of the contract assignment depend on a multiplicity of factors such as the contract’s language, applicability, availability of the assignment clause in the agreement, etc. There are contracts that contain a clause prohibiting Assignment, while other contracts require the consent of the other party to the Assignment.

But if a contract between two parties relies entirely on the’ promisor’s skill or expertise, then such a contract cannot be assigned under any circumstances. This is because the ‘promisee’ has entered into the contract based on the’ promisor’s skill or expertise. The case of Robinson v Davison is important case law in this regard . In this case, the defendant’s wife promised to play piano on a particular at a concert. She was unable to discharge her liability, that is, to play piano at the concert because of her illness. In this case, it was held that the contract was directly dependent on the good health and the personal skill of the defendant’s wife, and the illness of his wife discharged the contract. It was also stated that the defendant could not be made liable to pay compensation for the non-performance of the contract. As the contract was based on the ‘promisor’s skill in the above case law, the wife could not assign her right/obligation to any third party.

Case Study: Kapilaben & Ors. v Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Seth through POA Gopalbhai Manusudhan Case

Kapilaben & Ors. v Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Seth through POA Gopalbhai Manusudhan is a recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on November 25, 2019, concerning the Assignment of rights and Interests in a contract. In this judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a party to a contract could not assign its liabilities or obligations without the consent of the other party.

The facts of the case are: The appeals to the Supreme Court resulted from the Gujrat High Court’s decision that had allowed the appeals of the respondent against the trial court’s decision. The dispute, in this case, is related to a property owned by the appellants (Vendor). The appellant has had formulated an agreement to sell in favor of some of the respondents in 1986 regarding the above-mentioned property. The respondents, who were the original vendees, had paid a part of the consideration part. The Original Vendees, in 1987, assigned the former’s rights in favor of Respondent 1 and executed an agreement in favor of Respondent 1. This led to several disputes, and subsequently, Respondent 1 filed suits against the Original Vendees and the vendor demanding specific performance of the agreement executed in 1987. The Respondent’s suits were dismissed by the trial courts stating that the Original Vendees could not have assigned their outstanding obligation of paying Vendor the remaining money to Respondent 1 without the consent of the Vendor. On the other hand, Gujrat High Court reversed the decision of the trial court and declared the Assignment of rights in favor of Respondent 1 as valid.

The Supreme Court in its judgment reaffirmed the view of the trial courts and stated that: “ It is further relevant to note that under the 1987 agreements, payment of the outstanding consideration amount is to be made to the original vendees, not the Appellants, and possession/ownership of the suit property is to be handed over by the original vendees. The 1987 agreements nowhere provide for the discharge of the original vendees’ pending obligations towards the Appellants by Respondent Nos. 1. Hence, we are inclined to accept the Appellants’ argument that the 1987 agreements were not a case of Assignment but appear to be independent/sovereign agreements for sale which were contingent and dependent on the execution and implementation of the 1986 agreement. Therefore, the only way Respondent Nos. 1 can seek specific performance of the 1986 agreement against the Appellants is by proving the Appellants’ knowledge of and consent to transfer the original vendees’ rights and liabilities Respondent Nos. 1.”

From the above discussion, it is clear that the Assignment of contract refers to transferring contractual rights and liabilities under the contract to the third party with or without the other party’s concurrence. Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, thatenables the parties to dispense is the performance by way of Assignment of the contract. Under the Indian Contract Law, any form of contract can be assigned as long as consent is involved in the Assignment. The consent of the ‘promisee’ is necessary for assigning any obligation under the contract. The working and application of the contract assignment depend on a multiplicity of factors such as the contract’s language, applicability, availability of the assignment clause in the agreement, etc. There are contracts that contain a clause prohibiting Assignment, while other contracts require the consent of the other party to the Assignment. The Assignment of obligations/liabilities is not possible in the case of contracts solely relying on the personal skill or expertise of the ‘promisor’.

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Kapilaben & Ors. v Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Seth, through POA Gopalbhai Manusudhan Case, also reaffirms that in case of transfer/assigning of outstanding obligations under the contract, the consent of the other party is a necessary condition to make the Assignment valid. Even though this judgment reaffirms the point upheld by law, it still suggests the parties to a contract consider the various complexities of contracts, the intent contract, the availability of the assignability clause in the written agreement, etc., before drafting a commercial contract.

References:

The Indian Contract Act, 1872, No. 2(h) (Indian).
Dr. R.K. Bangia, The Indian Contract Act, 2 (12 th Edition, 2005), Allahabad Law Agency, Haryana.
Krishnendu Kanungo & Pritisha Chakraborty , Assignment Of Rights And Its Practical Relevance In Financial Transactions: A Lender’s Perspective Manupatra, http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/E915DA6B-361C-493B-91D1-96D8EB703128.pdf (last accessed Mar. 12, 2021).
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, No. 37 (Indian)
Sir Oshley Roy Marshall, The Assignment of Choses in Action (Pitman Publishing 1950).
Krishnendu, supra note 3, at 1.
Khared & Co. Ltd. v Ramon & Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1810.
Krishnendu, supra note 3, at 2.
Robinson v Davison, (1871) L.R. Ex. 269.
BANGIA, supra note 1, at 255.
Ramesh Vaidyanathan & Aishini Mandal, Assignment Of Contractual Obligations – Is Consent Necessary Advayalegal (Dec. 6, 2019) https://www.advayalegal.com/blog/contractual-rights/ (last accessed Mar. 13, 2021).