assignment of a contract without consent

• 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

Assignment of Contract

Jump to section, what is an assignment of contract.

An assignment of contract is a legal term that describes the process that occurs when the original party (assignor) transfers their rights and obligations under their contract to a third party (assignee). When an assignment of contract happens, the original party is relieved of their contractual duties, and their role is replaced by the approved incoming party.

How Does Assignment of Contract Work?

An assignment of contract is simpler than you might think.

The process starts with an existing contract party who wishes to transfer their contractual obligations to a new party.

When this occurs, the existing contract party must first confirm that an assignment of contract is permissible under the legally binding agreement . Some contracts prohibit assignments of contract altogether, and some require the other parties of the agreement to agree to the transfer. However, the general rule is that contracts are freely assignable unless there is an explicit provision that says otherwise.

In other cases, some contracts allow an assignment of contract without any formal notification to other contract parties. If this is the case, once the existing contract party decides to reassign his duties, he must create a “Letter of Assignment ” to notify any other contract signers of the change.

The Letter of Assignment must include details about who is to take over the contractual obligations of the exiting party and when the transfer will take place. If the assignment is valid, the assignor is not required to obtain the consent or signature of the other parties to the original contract for the valid assignment to take place.

Check out this article to learn more about how assigning a contract works.

Contract Assignment Examples

Contract assignments are great tools for contract parties to use when they wish to transfer their commitments to a third party. Here are some examples of contract assignments to help you better understand them:

Anna signs a contract with a local trash company that entitles her to have her trash picked up twice a week. A year later, the trash company transferred her contract to a new trash service provider. This contract assignment effectively makes Anna’s contract now with the new service provider.

Hasina enters a contract with a national phone company for cell phone service. The company goes into bankruptcy and needs to close its doors but decides to transfer all current contracts to another provider who agrees to honor the same rates and level of service. The contract assignment is completed, and Hasina now has a contract with the new phone company as a result.

Here is an article where you can find out more about contract assignments.

Assignment of Contract in Real Estate

Assignment of contract is also used in real estate to make money without going the well-known routes of buying and flipping houses. When real estate LLC investors use an assignment of contract, they can make money off properties without ever actually buying them by instead opting to transfer real estate contracts .

This process is called real estate wholesaling.

Real Estate Wholesaling

Real estate wholesaling consists of locating deals on houses that you don’t plan to buy but instead plan to enter a contract to reassign the house to another buyer and pocket the profit.

The process is simple: real estate wholesalers negotiate purchase contracts with sellers. Then, they present these contracts to buyers who pay them an assignment fee for transferring the contract.

This process works because a real estate purchase agreement does not come with the obligation to buy a property. Instead, it sets forth certain purchasing parameters that must be fulfilled by the buyer of the property. In a nutshell, whoever signs the purchase contract has the right to buy the property, but those rights can usually be transferred by means of an assignment of contract.

This means that as long as the buyer who’s involved in the assignment of contract agrees with the purchasing terms, they can legally take over the contract.

But how do real estate wholesalers find these properties?

It is easier than you might think. Here are a few examples of ways that wholesalers find cheap houses to turn a profit on:

• Direct mailers
• Place newspaper ads
• Make posts in online forums
• Social media posts

The key to finding the perfect home for an assignment of contract is to locate sellers that are looking to get rid of their properties quickly. This might be a family who is looking to relocate for a job opportunity or someone who needs to make repairs on a home but can’t afford it. Either way, the quicker the wholesaler can close the deal, the better.

Once a property is located, wholesalers immediately go to work getting the details ironed out about how the sale will work. Transparency is key when it comes to wholesaling. This means that when a wholesaler intends to use an assignment of contract to transfer the rights to another person, they are always upfront about during the preliminary phases of the sale.

In addition to this practice just being good business, it makes sure the process goes as smoothly as possible later down the line. Wholesalers are clear in their intent and make sure buyers know that the contract could be transferred to another buyer before the closing date arrives.

After their offer is accepted and warranties are determined, wholesalers move to complete a title search . Title searches ensure that sellers have the right to enter into a purchase agreement on the property. They do this by searching for any outstanding tax payments, liens , or other roadblocks that could prevent the sale from going through.

Wholesalers also often work with experienced real estate lawyers who ensure that all of the legal paperwork is forthcoming and will stand up in court. Lawyers can also assist in the contract negotiation process if needed but often don’t come in until the final stages.

If the title search comes back clear and the real estate lawyer gives the green light, the wholesaler will immediately move to locate an entity to transfer the rights to buy.

One of the most attractive advantages of real estate wholesaling is that very little money is needed to get started. The process of finding a seller, negotiating a price, and performing a title search is an extremely cheap process that almost anyone can do.

On the other hand, it is not always a positive experience. It can be hard for wholesalers to find sellers who will agree to sell their homes for less than the market value. Even when they do, there is always a chance that the transferred buyer will back out of the sale, which leaves wholesalers obligated to either purchase the property themselves or scramble to find a new person to complete an assignment of contract with.

Learn more about assignment of contract in real estate by checking out this article .

Who Handles Assignment of Contract?

The best person to handle an assignment of contract is an attorney. Since these are detailed legal documents that deal with thousands of dollars, it is never a bad idea to have a professional on your side. If you need help with an assignment of contract or signing a business contract , post a project on ContractsCounsel. There, you can connect with attorneys who know everything there is to know about assignment of contract amendment and can walk you through the whole process.

ContractsCounsel is not a law firm, and this post should not be considered and does not contain legal advice. To ensure the information and advice in this post are correct, sufficient, and appropriate for your situation, please consult a licensed attorney. Also, using or accessing ContractsCounsel's site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and ContractsCounsel.

Meet some of our Lawyers

Matt practices law in the areas of commercial finance, contract law, business & corporate law, and residential and commercial real estate (with a particular emphasis on retail shopping centers and office buildings). He has extensive experience in negotiating and structuring complex commercial loan, asset acquisition, asset disposition, leasing and real estate transactions. Matt additionally works on various general matters for clients such as forming LLCs and corporations, preparing various LLC and corporation documents and drafting and reviewing various types of contracts and agreements for clients and providing advice regarding same. Matt provides clients with extensive and timely communication on their matters and ensures that his clients are well represented and highly satisfied with their legal representation and the work product provided. Matt offers all potential clients a free initial consultation to discuss their legal matters prior to engaging his firm to represent them. Prior to opening his law firm Matt worked for many years in the New York City office of a large international law firm where he counseled large multi-national businesses, financial institutions, investment groups and individuals on highly sophisticated business, financial and real estate transactions. Matt provides his clients with diligent legal representation on their matters with a very personal approach.

With over 15 years of legal experience, I was admitted to the bar in 2008 and have since cultivated a diverse legal background. My expertise spans family law, estate planning, healthcare regulatory matters, and business law. I have a particular knack for crafting meticulous contracts. My approach is client-centric, ensuring that every individual receives personalized, knowledgeable guidance tailored to their unique situation. Partner with me, and let's navigate the complexities of the law together. www.downslawla.com

Copyright, trademark, and intellectual property contracts and licenses. General Business contracts. Practical and comprehensive advice and contract drafting in an efficient, no-nonsense manner. She routinely represents clients needing copyright, trademark, and intellectual property contracts and licenses in the book publishing industry, music publishing, and all aspects of art and entertainment. She has represented both sides of the table - creators and authors and corporations and businesses. After 40 years of experience she has seen most business models and structures and has worked with many general contracts in different industries.

I have 14 years civil litigation experience. My practice has included personal injury litigation, contract review, criminal law, family law, and estate planning.

Opeoluwa O.

I am a seasoned lawyer from Tulsa, Oklahoma, and founder of Abii Law Firm. I am originally from Nigeria but moved to Oklahoma eleven years ago and fell in love with it. I obtained my license to practice law three years ago. I have a passion for the intricacies of business law, and I have a specialized focus in assisting personal, real estate, and medical marijuana businesses in navigating the complex legal landscape and drafting various transactional documents, such as operating agreements, purchase contracts, real estate contracts, and many more. Currently, I live in Tulsa with my husband and beautiful 2 year old daughter.

Oklahoma Licensed Attorney

Sarah graduated magna cum laude from the University of Illinois College of Law in 2013. Prior to opening her own practice, Sarah worked in a large law firm defending corporate clients. She then transitioned to a smaller firm where her longing to serve clients in the surrounding community became evident. With her prior experience, Sarah opened her own firm in 2016 and has since served Lemont and the surrounding areas.

Find the best lawyer for your project

Quick, user friendly and one of the better ways I've come across to get ahold of lawyers willing to take new clients.

Need help with a Contract Agreement?

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

CONTRACT LAWYERS BY TOP CITIES

• Austin Contracts Lawyers
• Boston Contracts Lawyers
• Chicago Contracts Lawyers
• Dallas Contracts Lawyers
• Denver Contracts Lawyers
• Houston Contracts Lawyers
• Los Angeles Contracts Lawyers
• New York Contracts Lawyers
• Phoenix Contracts Lawyers
• San Diego Contracts Lawyers
• Tampa Contracts Lawyers

ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT LAWYERS BY CITY

• Austin Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Boston Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Chicago Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Dallas Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Denver Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Houston Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Los Angeles Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• New York Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Phoenix Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• San Diego Assignment Of Contract Lawyers
• Tampa Assignment Of Contract Lawyers

Contracts Counsel was incredibly helpful and easy to use. I submitted a project for a lawyer's help within a day I had received over 6 proposals from qualified lawyers. I submitted a bid that works best for my business and we went forward with the project.

I never knew how difficult it was to obtain representation or a lawyer, and ContractsCounsel was EXACTLY the type of service I was hoping for when I was in a pinch. Working with their service was efficient, effective and made me feel in control. Thank you so much and should I ever need attorney services down the road, I'll certainly be a repeat customer.

I got 5 bids within 24h of posting my project. I choose the person who provided the most detailed and relevant intro letter, highlighting their experience relevant to my project. I am very satisfied with the outcome and quality of the two agreements that were produced, they actually far exceed my expectations.

How It Works

Want to speak to someone.

Get in touch below and we will schedule a time to connect!

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

The Venture Alley

A blog about business and legal issues important to entrepreneurs, startups, venture capitalists and angel investors.

Assigning Contracts in the Context of M&A Transactions

CONTRIBUTED BY

One of the key considerations in structuring merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions is determining which contracts of the target company, if any, will remain in effect for the acquiror following closing.  This post will briefly outline: (1) the general rules of contract assignment; (2) the effect of anti-assignment clauses and other exceptions to the general rule of assignability; and (3) the effect of four common M&A structures on contract assignment.

General Rule: Contracts are Freely Assignable

The general rule is that contracts are freely assignable unless the contract itself, a statute, or public policy dictates otherwise.  This is true in Washington State, where courts have found that contractual rights are generally transferable unless the contract expressly prohibits assignment in “very specific” and “unmistakable terms.”

Exceptions to the General Assignability Rule

The exceptions to the general rule of free assignability fall into two broad categories: (1) contractual prohibitions on free assignability (“anti-assignment clauses”) and (2) case law prohibitions on free assignability of certain types of contracts that arise out of public policy concerns.

Anti-Assignment Clauses

In light of the general rule of free assignability, most business contracts contain a clause – commonly referred to as an “anti-assignment clause” – that expressly prohibits the assignment of contractual rights without the consent of the other party to the contract.  These anti-assignment clauses typically take one of two forms.  The first, which we will call “simple” anti-assignment clauses, simply prohibit the contractual right from being assigned without the consent of the other party to the contract.  For example, a simple anti-assignment clause might state:

This contract shall not be assigned or transferred by Party X without first obtaining the consent of Party Y.

While simple anti-assignment clauses are generally enforceable, certain types of M&A deal structures effectively circumvent such provisions and, accordingly, the necessity of third-party consents (see the discussion below regarding the impact of M&A deal structures on contract assignment for more detail). 

Comprehensive Anti-Assignment Provisions

In response to the inability of “simple” anti-assignment clauses to protect contractual rights in certain M&A contexts, many contracts include more robust anti-assignment provisions designed to require third party consent prior to an M&A event, even where the content itself will not be transferred.  For example, a comprehensive anti-assignment clause might state: 

Party X shall not assign this Agreement in whole or in part without Party Y’s prior written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.  Any change in control of Party X resulting from a merger, consolidation, stock transfer or asset sale shall be deemed an assignment or transfer for purposes of this Agreement that requires Party Y’s prior written consent.

Courts will generally enforce these types of comprehensive anti-assignment clauses and conclude that consummation of a change of control transaction without consent is a breach of contract.  Accordingly, to assign contracts with comprehensive anti-assignment provisions, the target must seek the consent of the counterparties to each such contract.  Obtaining third party consents in connection with M&A transactions may create sticky situations or cause costly delays.  The target company may not want their customers, suppliers or others to know that they are going through an M&A event, while the acquiror may want assurances that important contracts will remain in place.  What is more, certain contract counterparties may use the leverage of their consent to renegotiate the terms of the contract or extract concessions from the target company.  Accordingly, it is important that the parties identify and address comprehensive anti-assignment clauses early in the process – particularly where the contracts to be acquired make up a large portion of a target company’s value. 

Contracts That Involve a “Personal” Right

Contracts involving “personal rights” or contracts deemed “personal” by contractual recital or federal law are considered non-assignable or non-transferable unless specific consent is given by the non-assigning party. Generally, “personal” contracts are those that contemplate personal services, skills or performance from the non-assigning party, such as employment, consulting, and partnership agreements.  Courts have found that these types of agreements are not freely assignable as a matter of public policy because assigning personal contracts may result in materially adverse consequences (e.g., a material change in duty, risk, or burden) to the non-assigning party.  In addition to general contracts for personal services discussed above, courts have also found many types of intellectual property (IP) licenses to be “personal” in nature due to the profound importance of an IP holder’s right to choose who may use the protected IP.  Accordingly, non-exclusive IP license rights pertaining to copyright, trademark, and patent licenses are generally considered non-assignable, unless specific consent is given by the non-assigning party. Personal contracts are also treated differently from other types of contracts in the context of M&A events (see the discussion below regarding the impact of M&A deal structures on contract assignment for more detail).  Each of the types of “personal” contracts described above should receive heightened contract-by-contract due diligence to ensure that assignment does not violate applicable law.

Other Considerations

Courts may also consider the subject matter of the contract and the material risks associated with transferring those rights to the acquiror.   For example, where the non-merging entity is a competitor to the acquiring entity, courts may find that given the high risk and burden to the non-merging party, the assignment is ineffective on equitable grounds.

The Effect of the Four Most Common M&A Structures on the Assignment of the Target’s Contracts

The structure employed in a given M&A transaction is critical to determining the treatment of the target company’s various contractual rights. This section will examine the treatment of contractual rights in connection with four common M&A structures: (i) reverse triangular mergers, (ii) forward-triangular mergers, (iii) stock purchases, and (iv) asset purchases. For more information regarding M&A deal structures, please see here and here .  While reviewing each of the deal structures that follow, please note that each of the general rules are subject to the exceptions discussed above.

Reverse Triangular Merger

A reverse triangular merger occurs when an acquiror forms a subsidiary and the newly created subsidiary merges with and into the target company.  The target survives as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the acquiror following the merger, and continues to own its assets, owe its liabilities, and be party to its contracts.

In a reverse triangular merger, simple anti-assignment clauses generally are not triggered because, as a matter of law, no assignment of the contract has occurred (the target company survives and is the same legal entity as the original contracting party).  Accordingly, the contracts of the target remain with the surviving entity without the need to obtain third party consents or take other action.  Despite the general rule that no assignment occurs in connection with a reverse triangular merger, thorough contract-by-contract due diligence is still required to identify all contracts that include comprehensive anti-assignment provisions and/or may be deemed to be contracts for personal services (and therefore require consent) under applicable law.

Forward Triangular Merger  

In a forward triangular merger, the acquiring entity forms a subsidiary corporation and the target corporation merges directly with and into the newly created subsidiary.  As a result, the subsidiary survives the merger.  Under this structure, the subsidiary obtains all of the target company’s assets and liabilities by operation of law.

Simple anti-assignment clauses are generally not triggered in a forward triangular merger because the rights are vested, and not assigned, by operation of law.  Therefore, the target’s contracts generally transfer automatically to the acquiror without the need to obtain third party consents.  However, courts have created considerable ambiguity around the applicability of this general rule in the context of forward triangular mergers.  Accordingly, acquirors frequently require target companies to obtain third party consent as a matter of risk allocation and to create certainty that important contracts will remain in place after the merger.  As with the above, contract-by-contract due diligence is required to identify contracts that contain anti-assignment language or may be considered to be “personal.”

Direct Stock Purchase

In a direct stock purchase, the acquiror purchases all the outstanding shares of the target directly from its stockholders.  Instead of owning certain assets and related liabilities, the acquiror owns the entire selling company.  The selling company continues to exist as a separate legal entity and wholly-owned subsidiary of the acquiror (assuming 100% of the outstanding stock is purchased). 

In a sale of the target company through a direct stock purchase, the individual assets of the target company (including its material contracts) need not be separately assigned because only the ownership rights of the target are being transferred.  Like a reverse triangular merger, a direct stock purchase generally does not trigger a simple anti-assignment provision because the assets are not conveyed to a different entity.  Accordingly, the contracts of the selling company remain entirely in place without the need to obtain third party consents.  However, contract-by-contract due diligence is required to identify any contracts that contain comprehensive anti-assignment language that would be triggered by the change of control that occurs upon consummation of a stock sale and contracts that may be considered “personal” under applicable law.

Asset Purchase

The sale of some or all of the assets of a company is one method of transferring part or full ownership in the underlying business.  In an asset purchase, the acquiror purchases certain enumerated assets and liabilities of the target in exchange for the cash, the acquiror’s stock, or other consideration. 

In an asset purchase transaction, the acquiror is only responsible for the assets and liabilities specifically enumerated in the purchase agreement.  All other assets and liabilities remain with the target.  Without the protection of a merger statute, the purchaser of contractual assets will need to become a party to the purchased contracts through the general rule of assignability (and the absence of any exceptions). Therefore, if a contract purchased as part of an asset sale contains an anti-assignment provision (whether “simple” or “comprehensive”) or may be considered “personal”, then the target company must obtain the consent of the counter party in order to convey the contract to the acquiror.  In the event that neither of the exceptions to the general rule apply, then the contract is generally assignable to the acquiror.

Although contracts are generally freely assignable, in the context of any M&A transaction or other proposed contract assignment, careful consideration should be given to: (1) whether the contract in question includes an anti-assignment provision and, if so, whether the provision is “comprehensive” ( i.e. , applies to change of control transactions even where, by operation of law, no assignment would be deemed to occur); (2) whether the contract is “personal” in nature; and (3) how the proposed deal structure impacts the treatment of the target’s contractual rights. Given the fact-specific standards for assignment, each of the target’s contracts should be carefully reviewed during the due diligence phase of an M&A transaction to ensure that they are assigned in compliance with applicable law.

Blog Manager

Blog Authors Show/Hide

• Trent Dykes
• Asher Bearman
• Andrew Ledbetter
• Tyler Hollenbeck
• DLA Piper LLP
• Mel Wheaton
• Luke Postma
• Lindsey Haythorn
• Kevin Criddle
• Chris Thorson
• Anthony Kappus

Additional Topics

Subscribe by email, stay connected, featured article, what to know about noncompete agreements in 2024.

• A VC (Fred Wilson)
• Both Sides of the Table
• Feld Thoughts
• Redfin Corporate Blog
• Seattle Trademark Lawyer
• The Law of Startups
• Wall Street Journal – VC Dispatch

• Drafting a Workable Contract
• Contract Tips
• Startup law
• Common Draft
• Choice of law
• Patent apps
• Marketing legal review
• Engagement agreement
• UH class notes
• Arbitration

Assignment provisions in contracts

Author’s note, Nov. 22, 2014: For a much-improved update of this page, see the Common Draft general provisions article .

(For more real-world stories like the ones below, see my PDF e-book, Signing a Business Contract? A Quick Checklist for Greater Peace of Mind , a compendium of tips and true stories to help you steer clear of various possible minefields. Learn more …. )

Table of Contents

Legal background: Contracts generally are freely assignable

When a party to a contract “ assigns ” the contract to someone else, it means that party, known as the assignor , has transferred its rights under the contract to someone else, known as the assignee , and also has delegated its obligations to the assignee.

Under U.S. law, most contract rights are freely assignable , and most contract duties are freely delegable, absent some special character of the duty, unless the agreement says otherwise. In some situations, however, the parties will not want their opposite numbers to be able to assign the agreement freely; contracts often include language to this effect.

Intellectual-property licenses are an exception to the general rule of assignability. Under U.S. law, an IP licensee may not assign its license rights, nor delegate its license obligations, without the licensor’s consent, even when the license agreement is silent. See, for example, In re XMH Corp. , 647 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2011) (Posner, J; trademark licenses); Cincom Sys., Inc. v. Novelis Corp. , 581 F.3d 431 (6th Cir. 2009) (copyright licenses); Rhone-Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. DeKalb Genetics Corp. , 284 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (patent licenses). For additional information, see this article by John Paul, Brian Kacedon, and Douglas W. Meier of the Finnegan Henderson firm.

Assignment consent requirements

Model language

[Party name] may not assign this Agreement to any other person without the express prior written consent of the other party or its successor in interest, as applicable, except as expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement. A putative assignment made without such required consent will have no effect.

Optional: Nor may [Party name] assign any right or interest arising out of this Agreement, in whole or in part, without such consent.

Alternative: For the avoidance of doubt, consent is not required for an assignment (absolute, collateral, or other) or pledge of, nor for any grant of a security interest in, a right to payment under this Agreement.

Optional: An assignment of this Agreement by operation of law, as a result of a merger, consolidation, amalgamation, or other transaction or series of transactions, requires consent to the same extent as would an assignment to the same assignee outside of such a transaction or series of transactions.

• An assignment-consent requirement like this can give the non-assigning party a chokehold on a future merger or corporate reorganization by the assigning party — see the case illustrations below.

• A party being asked to agree to an assignment-consent requirement should consider trying to negotiate one of the carve-out provisions below, for example, when the assignment is connection with a sale of substantially all the assets of the assignor’s business {Link} .

Case illustrations

The dubai port deal (ny times story and story ).

In 2006, a Dubai company that operated several U.S. ports agreed to sell those operations. (The agreement came about because of publicity and political pressure about the alleged national-security implications of having Middle-Eastern companies in charge of U.S. port operations.)

A complication arose in the case of the Port of Newark: The Dubai company’s lease agreement gave the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey the right to consent to any assignment of the agreement — and that agency initially demanded $84 million for its consent.

After harsh criticism from political leaders, the Port Authority backed down a bit: it gave consent in return for “only” a $10 million consent fee, plus $40 million investment commitment by the buyer.

Cincom Sys., Inc. v. Novelis Corp., No. 07-4142 (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 2009) (affirming summary judgment)

A customer of a software vendor did an internal reorganization. As a result, the vendor’s software ended up being used by a sister company of the original customer. The vendor demanded that the sister company buy a new license. The sister company refused.

The vendor sued, successfully, for copyright infringement, and received the price of a new license, more than $450,000 as its damages. The case is discussed in more detail in this blog posting.

The vendor’s behavior strikes me as extremely shortsighted, for a couple of reasons: First, I wouldn’t bet much on the likelihood the customer would ever buy anything again from that vendor. Second, I would bet that the word got around about what the vendor did, and that this didn’t do the vendor’s reputation any good.

Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v. Roche Diagnostics GmbH, No. 5589-VCP (Del. Ch. Apr. 8, 2011) (denying motion to dismiss).

The Delaware Chancery Court refused to rule out the possibility that a reverse triangular merger could act as an assignment of a contract, which under the contract terms would have required consent. See also the discussion of this opinion by Katherine Jones of the Sheppard Mullin law firm.

Assignment with transfer of business assets

Consent is not required for an assignment of this Agreement in connection with a sale or other disposition of substantially all the assets of the assigning party’s business.

Optional: Alternatively, the sale or other disposition may be of substantially all the assets of the assigning party’s business to which this Agreement specifically relates.

Optional: The assignee must not be a competitor of the non-assigning party.

• A prospective assigning party might argue that it needed to keep control of its own strategic destiny, for example by preserving its freedom to sell off a product line or division (or even the whole company) in an asset sale.

• A non-assigning party might argue that it could not permit the assignment of the agreement to one of its competitors, and that the only way to ensure this was to retain a veto over any assignment.

• Another approach might be to give the non-assigning party, instead of a veto over asset-disposition assignments, the right to terminate the contract for convenience . (Of course, the implications of termination would have to be carefully thought through.)

Assignment to affiliate

[Either party] may assign this Agreement without consent to its affiliate.

Optional: The assigning party must unconditionally guarantee the assignee’s performance.

Optional: The affiliate must not be a competitor of the non-assigning party.

Optional: The affiliate must be a majority-ownership affiliate of the assigning party.

• A prospective assigning party might argue for the right to assign to an affiliate to preserve its freedom to move assets around within its “corporate family” without having to seek approval.

• The other party might reasonably object that there is no way to know in advance whether an affiliate-assignee would be in a position to fulfill the assigning party’s obligations under the contract, nor whether it would have reachable assets in case of a breach.

Editorial comment: Before approving a blanket affiliate-assignment authorization, a party should consider whether it knew enough about the other party’s existing- or future affiliates to be comfortable with where the agreement might end up.

Consent may not be unreasonably withheld or delayed

Consent to an assignment of this Agreement requiring it may not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.

Optional: For the avoidance of doubt, any damages suffered by a party seeking a required consent to assignment of this Agreement, resulting from an unreasonable withholding or delay of such consent, are to be treated as direct damages.

Optional: For the avoidance of doubt, any damages suffered by a party seeking a required consent to assignment of this Agreement, resulting from an unreasonable withholding or delay of such consent, are not subject to any exclusion of remedies or other limitation of liability in this Agreement.

• Even if this provision were absent, applicable law might impose a reasonableness requirement; see the discussion of the Shoney case in the commentary to the Consent at discretion provision.

• A reasonableness requirement might not be of much practical value, whether contractual or implied by law. Such a requirement could not guarantee that the non-assigning party would give its consent when the assigning party wants it. And by the time a court could resolve the matter, the assigning party’s deal could have been blown.

• Still, an unreasonable-withholding provision should make the non-assigning party think twice about dragging its feet too much, becuase of the prospect of being held liable for damages for a busted transaction. Cf. Pennzoil vs. Texaco and its $10.5 billion damage award for tortious interference with an M&A deal.

• Including an unreasonable-delay provision might conflict with the Materiality of assignment breach provision, for reasons discussed there in the summary of the Hess Energy case.

Consent at discretion

A party having the right to grant or withhold consent to an assignment of this Agreement may do so in its sole and unfettered discretion.

• If a party might want the absolute right to withhold consent to an assignment in its sole discretion, it would be a good idea to try to include that in the contract language. Otherwise, there’s a risk that court might impose a commercial-reasonableness test under applicable law (see the next bullet). On the other hand, asking for such language but not getting it could be fatal to the party’s case that it was implicitly entitled to withhold consent in its discretion.

• If a commercial- or residential lease agreement requires the landlord’s consent before the tentant can assign the lease, state law might impose a reasonableness requirement. I haven’t researched this, but ran across an unpublished California opinion and an old law review article, each collecting cases. See Nevada Atlantic Corp. v. Wrec Lido Venture, LLC, No. G039825 (Cal. App. Dec. 8, 2008) (unpublished; reversing judgment that sole-discretion withholding of consent was unreasonable); Paul J. Weddle, Pacific First Bank v. New Morgan Park Corporation: Reasonable Withholding of Consent to Commercial Lease Assignments , 31 Willamette L. Rev. 713 (1995) (first page available for free at HeinOnline ).

Shoney’s LLC v. MAC East, LLC, No. 1071465 (Ala. Jul. 31, 2009)

In 2009, the Alabama Supreme Court rejected a claim that Shoney’s restaurant chain breached a contract when it demanded a $70,000 to $90,000 payment as the price of its consent to a proposed sublease. The supreme court noted that the contract specifically gave Shoney’s the right, in its sole discretion , to consent to any proposed assignment or sublease.

Significantly, prior case law from Alabama was to the effect that a refusal to consent would indeed be judged by a commercial-reasonableness standard. But, the supreme court said, “[w]here the parties to a contract use language that is inconsistent with a commercial-reasonableness standard, the terms of such contract will not be altered by an implied covenant of good faith. Therefore, an unqualified express standard such as ‘sole discretion’ is also to be construed as written.” Shoney’s LLC v. MAC East, LLC , No. 1071465 (Ala. Jul. 31, 2009) (on certification by Eleventh Circuit), cited by MAC East, LLC v. Shoney’s [LLC] , No. 07-11534 (11th Cir. Aug. 11, 2009), reversing No. 2:05-cv-1038-MEF (WO) (M.D. Ala. Jan. 8, 2007) (granting partial summary judgment that Shoney’s had breached the contract).

Termination by non-assigning party

A non-assigning party may terminate this Agreement, in its business discretion , by giving notice to that effect no later than 60 days after receiving notice, from either the assigning party or the assignee, that an assignment of the Agreement has become effective.

Consider an agreement in which a vendor is to provide ongoing services to a customer. A powerful customer might demand the right to consent to the vendor’s assignment of the agreement, even in strategic transactions. The vendor, on the other hand, might refuse to give any customer that kind of control of its strategic options.

A workable compromise might be to allow the customer to terminate the agreement during a stated window of time after the assignment if it is not happy with the new vendor.

Assignment – other provisions

Optional: Delegation: For the avoidance of doubt, an assignment of this Agreement operates as a transfer of the assigning party’s rights and a delegation of its duties under this Agreement.

Optional: Promise to perform: For the avoidance of doubt, an assignee’s acceptance of an assignment of this Agreement constitutes the assignee’s promise to perform the assigning party’s duties under the Agreement. That promise is enforceable by either the assigning party or by the non-assigning party.

Optional: Written assumption by assignee: IF: The non-assigning party so requests of an assignee of this Agreement; THEN: The assignee will seasonably provide the non-assigning party with a written assumption of the assignor’s obligations, duly executed by or on behalf of the assignee; ELSE: The assignment will be of no effect.

Optional: No release: For the avoidance of doubt, an assignment of this Agreement does not release the assigning party from its responsibility for performance of its duties under the Agreement unless the non-assigning party so agrees in writing.

Optional: Confidentiality: A non-assigning party will preserve in confidence any non-public information about an actual- or proposed assignment of this Agreement that may be disclosed to that party by a party participating in, or seeking consent for, the assignment.

The Delegation provision might not be necessary in a contract for the sale of goods governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, because a similar provision is found in UCC 2-210

The Confidentiality provision would be useful if a party to the agreement anticipated that it might be engaging in any kind of merger or other strategic transaction.

Materiality of assignment breach

IF: A party breaches any requirement of this Agreement that the party obtain another party’s consent to assign this Agreement; THEN: Such breach is to be treated as a material breach of this Agreement.

A chief significance of this kind of provision is that failure to obtain consent to assignment, if it were a material breach, would give the non-assigning party the right to terminate the Agreement.

If an assignment-consent provision requires that consent not be unreasonably withheld , then failure to obtain consent to a reasonable assignment would not be a material breach, according to the court in Hess Energy Inc. v. Lightning Oil Co. , No. 01-1582 (4th Cir. Jan. 18, 2002) (reversing summary judgment). In that case, the agreement was a natural-gas supply contract. The customer was acquired by a larger company, after which the larger company took over some of the contract administration responsibilities such as payment of the vendor’s invoices. The vendor, seeking to sell its gas to someone else at a higher price, sent a notice of termination, on grounds that the customer had “assigned” the agreement to its new parent company, in violation of the contract’s assignment-consent provision. The appeals court held that, even if the customer had indeed assigned the contract (a point on which it expressed considerable doubt) without consent, the resulting breach of the agreement was not material, and therefore the vendor did not have the right to terminate the contract.

See also (list is generated automatically) :

• Notebook update: Reverse triangular merger might be an assignment of a contract, requiring consent Just updated the Notebook with a citation to a case in which the Delaware Chancery Court refused to rule out the possibility that a reverse...
• Assignment-consent requirements can cause serious problems in future M&A transactions A lot of contracts provide that Party A must obtain the prior written consent of Party B if it wishes to assign the agreement to a...
• SCOTX rejects implied obligation not to unreasonably withhold consent to assignment of contract In a recent Texas case, two sophisticated parties in the oil and gas busi­ness — let’s call them Alpha and Bravo — were negotiating a contract....
• Ken Adams and the marketplace of ideas I (used to) comment occasionally at Ken Adams’s blog. Recent examples: Here, here, here, here, and here. Ken and I disagree on a number of issues; some...

Dell “D. C.” Toedt III

Subscribe via Email

I won\'t spam you

Email Address

Common Draft annotated contract form book project

Contract drafting tips

Choice of law cheat sheets

Contract review: A final checklist before you sign

Legal cheat sheet for business

Tips for new general counsel

Patent apps at lower cost

Privacy policy sample

Attorney-client engagement agreement form

Why we lawyers can seem like such weasels

This site rocks the Classic Responsive Skin for Thesis .

What is an Anti-Assignment Clause?

When business owners are negotiating contracts to gear up for the sale of their business, they are rightly concerned with key questions such as the sale price for the business including assets such as how much the sale will cost them and what happens if something goes wrong.  At the end of the contracts, there are usually several pages of type that usually look like boilerplate. Inside those clauses is usually something called an assignment clause, or more accurately, an anti-assignment clause.

It’s one of those clauses that everyone glosses over – after all, it’s just standard legal text, right?

For a business owner hoping to sell their business, an anti-assignment clause can dissuade potential buyers and play a crucial role in the selling price of a business.  If this sounds familiar and you’re in the process of negotiating the merger or acquisition of your business, read on – we’ve put together a practical guide to anti-assignment clauses and what to look out for.

Looking for legal help? feel free to get in touch with our  commercial lawyers  for matters related to contracts.

What is an assignment clause?

The anti-assignment clause states that neither party can transfer or assign the agreement without the consent of the other party. On a basic level, that makes sense – after all, if you sign a contract with a specific party, you don’t expect to be entering into an agreement with a third party you didn’t intend to be.

However, when you sell your business, you will want to transfer ownership of those contracts to the buyer. If your contracts all contain an anti-assignment clause, they effectively restrict you from transferring ownership to the interested party. Now, you’re presented with a new challenge altogether – before you can focus on the sale of your business, you must first renegotiate the terms of your contracts with each party.

Language to look out for in anti-assignment clauses

If you’re thinking about selling your business or even have potential buyers interested, it’s better to know in advance if you’ve got anti-assignment clauses in your contracts. There are generally two types of anti-assignment clause to look out for. The first relates to the complete bar on assignment of rights and responsibilities and is typically worded in this way, or similar:

“Neither Party may assign, delegate, or transfer this agreement or any of its rights or obligations under this agreement.”

The second type prevents the transfer of rights or duties without prior written consent of the other party. This will read along the lines of:

 “Neither this agreement nor any right, interest, or obligation herein may be assigned, transferred, or delegated to a third party without the prior written consent of the other party, and whose consent may be withheld for any reason.”

So, where the first prohibits assignment altogether, the second prohibits assignment unless permission is sought in advance. Some clauses may even explicitly state that a change of control such as a merger or acquisition is an assignment. The last thing you want is to cause a dispute by breaching the contract, but if you’ve already agreed to these terms, you’ll have to open a fresh set of negotiations with the contracting party before you sell the company.

Assignment clauses in M&A: what’s the problem?

Due diligence is the bread and butter of any merger or acquisition. Rather than a leap of faith, due diligence ensures the purchase of a business is a calculated decision with minimal risk to the buyer. Typically carried out by specialist lawyers, the process is designed to lift the hood on the target business to determine the valuation of assets and liabilities and identify any glaring issues that could leave the buyer open to risk.

During the due diligence process, the buyer will look through all of the major contracts the business has open, and specifically keep a close eye out for assignment clauses.

Despite the virtual environment that many businesses have been forced to operate in in 2020, most companies will have commercial leases for the premises from which they typically work. Almost all leases have an anti-assignment clause, and this is a perfect example of an instance that is often overlooked by commercial tenants when selling a business which includes a leasehold property.  This transfer of ownership may well be prohibited under an anti-assignment clause so that prior to the sale of the business, you would be required to ask permission from your landlord. The issue here is that the landlord may well see this as the perfect opportunity to renegotiate and secure a better deal for themselves. What’s worse, if they don’t sign off on the transfer, you’ll have an obstruction on your hands that will stand in the way of the sale.

In any case, an unexpected anti-assignment clause usually winds up being a last-minute hitch in the sale, and it never comes at a good time. Whether it delays the sale or obstructs it altogether, overlooking an anti-assignment clause can cost you considerably in an M&A transaction.

What makes anti-assignment clauses enforceable?

Generally speaking, an anti-assignment clause will be enforced by the courts if it was agreed upon by both parties to the contract. Many contracts exclude or qualify the right to assignment – according to the courts, a clause that states that a party to a contract may not assign the benefit of that contract without the consent of the other party is legally effective and will extend to all rights and benefits arising under the contract.

Courts won’t always enforce assignments to which the counterparty did not give permission, even where there is no anti-assignment clause that specifies this provision.

How to negotiate anti-assignment clauses

The best practice for business owners is to be vigilant when negotiating new contracts and ensure that any anti-assignment clauses still allow for the transfer of ownership when they decide to sell the business.

Remember, even though the buyer is purchasing the assets of the business, this usually means that all of the contracts of the business go with it because the business remains intact. Therefore, the best way forward is to negotiate these clauses upfront from the outset of the relationship, so that when you do decide to sell your business, you automatically have permission to transfer the ownership without having to delay the sale by entering into fresh negotiations.

If your agreement does not permit assignments, it’s worth seeking the advice and support of a specialist lawyer who can help protect your interests through negotiation with your counterparty on this point. You may be able to include a provision that allows for assignment of your rights and obligations upon the prior written consent of the other party. Your lawyer will likely advise you to carve out a specific provision to prohibit the counterparty from unreasonably withholding or delaying consent or making it subject to unreasonable conditions – an issue which, if not provided for within the contract, can cause serious delay and disruption to the sale of your business. Further, it may be beneficial to add an extra element to the contract that makes exceptions to the clause for assignments between affiliates.  If you’re planning to sell your business, this would be the right place to carve out an exception within the clause to the change of control via a merger or acquisition.

It’s important to bear in mind that anti-assignment clauses tend to be viewed narrowly by courts, and that there have been several instances whereby anti-assignment clauses have not been enforced since the clause itself did not explicitly state that the assignment of rights, duties or payment would render the contract void or invalid. So, if you’re in the process of negotiating an agreement and wish to protect your interests through the addition of an anti-assignment clause, it’s critical that you include the consequences of assignment within the clause itself and state that assignments would invalidate or be in breach of the contract.

If you do not wish for the counterparty to be able to transfer the legal obligation to perform their duties as stated in the contract to a third party, this must be explicitly stated in one of three ways:

• Specify the need for consent

There’s no need to be unreasonable – you can protect your interests while still giving the counterparty the space to re-negotiate should they wish to assign rights by including a clause that asks for consent.

• Provide an exemption to consent for affiliates, successors or new owners

Ask your lawyer to draft an exception into the clause that permits assignment to affiliates or successors to the counterparty, such as:

“Neither party may assign or delegate this agreement or its rights or obligations under this agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, except that no consent is required (a) for assignment to an entity in which the transferring party will own greater than 50 per cent of the shares or other interests; or (b) in connection with any sale, transfer, or disposition of all or substantially all of its business or assets; provided that no such assignment will relieve an assigning party of its obligations under this agreement. Any assignment or delegation that violates this provision shall be void.”

• Require reasonable consent

Just as you would not wish for consent to be held back from you unreasonably in the renegotiation of contract terms prior to a sale, your assignment clause should make clear that you will not unreasonably withhold or delay consent should the third party request permission to assign their legal obligations. This may read something like this:

 “Neither party may assign or delegate this agreement or its rights or obligations under this agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any assignment or delegation that violates this provision shall be void.”

Whatever the circumstances, we strongly recommend calling upon a contract law specialist, whether you’re undergoing due diligence in the run up to an M&A transaction, are considering selling your business or are negotiating new contracts with customers and suppliers. Our lawyers bring in-depth expertise in the area of anti-assignment clauses and will work closely with you to protect your interests and ensure no clauses in your contracts negatively impact the sale of your company.

For a free consultation, get in touch with our team through the contact form below or using our online chat service.

Join our Newsletter

• Book Consultation

Newsletter Sign-Up

Please enter your name and email to receive our latest newsletter.

Sign up to our newsletter Sign up to our legal update service

Please fill in the fields below to receive your free download.

English (UK) Portuguese (Brazil) Spanish (Spain) French (France) German Italian Polish Dutch Chinese (China)

Connect with us on LinkedIn

Global LinkedIn Page

Error: Contact form not found.

Arrange a Meeting

Schedule a 30 minute introductory consultation to discuss your legal requirements:

Select your Location    Australia    China    Hong Kong    India    Indonesia    Japan    Malaysia    New Zealand    Pakistan    Philippines    Singapore    South Korea    Thailand    Vietnam    Austria    Bahrain    Belgium    Bulgaria    Cameroon    Croatia    Cyprus    Czech Republic    Denmark    Egypt    Finland    France    Germany    Greece    Hungary    Iceland    Iran    Iraq    Ireland    Israel    Italy    Jersey    Jordan    Kenya    Latvia    Lebanon    Lithuania    Luxembourg    Mozambique    Netherlands    Nigeria    North Macedonia    Norway    Oman    Poland    Portugal    Romania    Saudi Arabia    Serbia    Slovakia    Slovenia    South Africa    Spain    Sweden    Switzerland    Tunisia    Turkiye    UAE    Uganda    United Kingdom    Argentina    Brazil    Chile    Colombia    Costa Rica    Mexico    Peru    Canada    USA

Sign up to our newsletter

Don’t Confuse Change of Control and Assignment Terms

• David Tollen
• September 11, 2020

An assignment clause governs whether and when a party can transfer the contract to someone else. Often, it covers what happens in a change of control: whether a party can assign the contract to its buyer if it gets merged into a company or completely bought out. But that doesn’t make it a change of control clause. Change of control terms don’t address assignment. They say whether a party can terminate if the other party goes through a merger or other change of control. And they sometimes address other change of control consequences.

Don’t confuse the two. In a contract about software or other IT, you should think through the issues raised by each. (Also, don’t confuse assignment of contracts with assignment of IP .)

Here’s an assignment clause:

Assignment. Neither party may assign this Agreement or any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the other’s express written consent, except that either party may assign this Agreement to the surviving party in a merger of that party into another entity or in an acquisition of all or substantially all its assets. No assignment becomes effective unless and until the assignee agrees in writing to be bound by all the assigning party’s obligations in this Agreement. Except to the extent forbidden in this Section __, this Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties’ respective successors and assigns.

As you can see, that clause says no assignment is allowed, with one exception:

• Assignment to Surviving Entity in M&A: Under the clause above, a party can assign the contract to its buyer — the “surviving entity” — if it gets merged into another company or otherwise bought — in other words, if it ceases to exist through an M&A deal (or becomes an irrelevant shell company).

Consider the following additional issues for assignment clauses:

• Assignment to Affiliates: Can a party assign the contract to its sister companies, parents, and/or subs — a.k.a. its “Affiliates”?
• Assignment to Divested Entities: If a party spins off its key department or other business unit involved in the contract, can it assign the contract to that spun-off company — a.k.a. the “divested entity”? That’s particularly important in technology outsourcing deals and similar contracts. They often leave a customer department highly dependent on the provider’s services. If the customer can’t assign the contract to the divested entity, the spin-off won’t work; the new/divested company won’t be viable.
• Assignment to Competitors: If a party does get any assignment rights, can it assign to the other party’s competitors ? (If so, you’ve got to define “Competitor,” since the word alone can refer to almost any company.)
• All Assignments or None: The contract should usually say something about assignments. Otherwise, the law might allow all assignments. (Check your jurisdiction.) If so, your contracting partner could assign your agreement to someone totally unacceptable. (Most likely, though, your contracting partner would remain liable.) If none of the assignments suggested above fits, forbid all assignments.

Change of Control

Here’s a change of control clause:

Change of Control. If a party undergoes a Change of Control, the other party may terminate this Agreement on 30 days’ written notice. (“Change of Control” means a transaction or series of transactions by which more than 50% of the outstanding shares of the target company or beneficial ownership thereof are acquired within a 1-year period, other than by a person or entity that owned or had beneficial ownership of more than 50% of such outstanding shares before the close of such transactions(s).)

• Termination on Change of Control: A party can terminate if controlling ownership of the other party changes hands.

Change of control and assignment terms actually address opposite ownership changes. If an assignment clause addresses change of control, it says what happens if a party goes through an M&A deal and no longer exists (or becomes a shell company). A change of control clause, on the other hand, matters when the party subject to M&A does still exist . That party just has new owners (shareholders, etc.).

Consider the following additional issues for change of control clauses:

• Smaller Change of Ownership: The clause above defines “Change of Control” as any 50%-plus ownership shift. Does that set the bar too high? Should a 25% change authorize termination by the other party, or even less? In public companies and some private ones, new bosses can take control by acquiring far less than half the stock.
• No Right to Terminate: Should a change of control give any right to terminate, and if so, why? (Keep in mind, all that’s changed is the party’s owners — possibly irrelevant shareholders.)
• Divested Entity Rights: What if, again, a party spins off the department or business until involved in the deal? If that party can’t assign the contract to the divested entity, per the above, can it at least “sublicense” its rights to products or service, if it’s the customer? Or can it subcontract its performance obligations to the divested entity, if it’s the provider? Or maybe the contract should require that the other party sign an identical contract with the divested entity, at least for a short term.

Some of this text comes from the 3rd edition of The Tech Contracts Handbook , available to order (and review) from Amazon  here , or purchase directly from its publisher, the American Bar Association, here.

Want to do tech contracts better, faster, and with more confidence? Check out our training offerings here: https://www.techcontracts.com/training/ . Tech Contracts Academy has  options to fit every need and schedule: Comprehensive Tech Contracts M aster Classes™ (four on-line classes, two hours each), topical webinars (typically about an hour), customized in-house training (for just your team).   David Tollen is the founder of Tech Contracts Academy and our primary trainer. An attorney and also the founder of Sycamore Legal, P.C. , a boutique IT, IP, and privacy law firm in the San Francisco Bay Area, he also serves as an expert witness in litigation about software licenses, cloud computing agreements, and other IT contracts.

© 2020, 2022 by Tech Contracts Academy, LLC. All rights reserved.

Thank you to  Pixabay.com  for great, free stock images!

Related Posts

A contract should read like instructions for building furniture – or an aircraft carrier.

This week’s unsolicited advice on contracts … Here’s a proposition: we should NOT seek shorter or simpler contracts where those goals contradict our higher priority:

Consequential Damages in IT Contracts (CrowdStrike vs Delta Air Lines)

The very public argument between CrowdStrike and Delta Air Lines offers a window into a topic few understand: the exclusion of consequential damages in typical

Thoughts about our future jobs, from David Tollen

Watch this video for some encouraging (and non-typical) thoughts about our future jobs, from David Tollen. And if you’d like hone these very skills, our

New LIVE Trainings Coming in September

We invite you to join our live trainings this fall: Our Tech Contracts Master Class series runs Sept. 17, Sept. 24, Oct. 8, and Oct. 17, 2024. Four courses,

Our website uses cookies. If you click “Deny” or don’t respond, our system will ask your browser not to accept tracking or statistics-collecting cookies from our site, but not functional cookies. You may still receive script other technologies that Google Analytics or our other vendors use for anonymous tracking and statistics collection. For further information, please see our Cookie Policy per the link below.

• Search Close
• Open navigation Close navigation

Assignment of contractual rights: what happens when a party unreasonably withholds consent?

A party to a contract may sometimes want to transfer – or assign – their rights or interests under the contract to a third party. This is common in business sales or reorganisations within group companies. Assignment can be done by way of a simple agreement and, in principle, carried out without the knowledge or consent of the other contracting party. After the assignment, the assignee is entitled to enjoy the benefits of the contract and, if necessary, enforce its rights under the contract against the other party. In practice, commercial contracts often include terms which restrict a party’s ability to transfer their rights under the contract, either by prohibiting any assignment or by requiring the consent of the other party. Where the consent of the other party is required, contracts often provide that consent may not be unreasonably withheld. That begs the question: what constitutes an “unreasonable” refusal to consent and what happens if a party does unreasonably withhold its consent? A recent case – Gama Aviation & International Jet Club v MWWMMWM Ltd – has provided some helpful guidance:

• Reasonableness has to be given a broad, common sense meaning.
• It requires a reasonable process, which means a party must take into account considerations which have a legitimate purpose and disregard irrelevant considerations.
• It also requires a rational outcome. A party's refusal must serve a purpose sufficiently connected with the subject matter of the party's conduct. It cannot refuse consent on the basis of unconnected matters or to achieve a collateral purpose. 
• The party refusing consent can only rely upon reasons which actually influenced the refusal at the time of the assignment, not afterthoughts.
• If a party does unreasonably withhold its consent, the party seeking consent is entitled to carry out the assignment as if consent had been given.

This is a reminder of the importance of considering any clauses concerning assignment when negotiating a contract. If Party A only wants to have dealings with Party B going forward, it should ensure that the contract either prohibits Party B from assigning its contractual rights or that any assignment requires Party A’s consent. Any obligation on Party A to act reasonably could significantly restrict its ability to block an assignment.

The Gama  case

The Gama case arose when a party tried to avoid its liability for services that had been provided on the basis that the obligation to provide services had been assigned without consent and that the assignment was therefore invalid. The second claimant ( C2 ) entered into an agreement with the defendant ( D ) under which C2 would provide services for the management and operation of D’s aircraft ( the Agreement ). Some time later, C2’s parent company was acquired by the parent company of the first claimant ( C1 ) and C2 was wound up; C1 then provided the services to D. D paid C1 for the services for few years but then refused to pay. C1 issued a claim against D for the unpaid sums, arguing that it had taken C2’s place under the Agreement, either by novation (a means of transferring both rights and obligations under a contract to a third party) or by assignment. C1 and C2 had entered into a deed of assignment which purported to assign absolutely all of C2’s rights, interests and benefits under the Agreement to C1. As such, C1 claimed that it should be entitled to the payments owed by D under the Agreement. D argued that the assignment from C2 to C1 was not effective because the Agreement included a clause which said any assignment would require D’s consent, such consent “ not to be unreasonably withheld” . D said that it had not consented to the assignment. The court found that that the Agreement had been novated but, even if it hadn’t, the assignment from C2 to C1 would have been fully effective in transferring C2’s rights to C1 even though D had not consented. D had argued that the assignment had been carried out for the purposes of litigation rather than an ordinary business purposes, and that the assignment was unclear in its effect because it was prepared against a background in which there was an issue as to whether the novation was effective. However, the court said that C1 and C2 were entitled to regularise their position to ensure it was clear to whom obligations were owed. Furthermore, the assignment itself was perfectly clear and comprehensive. In conclusion, the court found that D had unreasonably withheld its consent and therefore D’s assertion that the assignment was invalid was unsustainable.

If you require further information about anything covered in this briefing, please contact Ben Longworth , Lucy Billett or your usual contact at the firm on +44 (0)20 3375 7000.

This publication is a general summary of the law. It should not replace legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. © Farrer & Co LLP, June 2022

Want to know more?

More by the authors.

Hotel management agreements: what could go wrong?

Contractual provisions take precedence in force majeure clauses

Disclosure failures not fatal to non-compete injunction

Privilege: the key developments in 2023

Further reading.

AGA saga: when upcycling becomes trade mark infringement

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? What can landowners do when drones trespass?

Legal update: UK ratifies 2019 Hague judgments convention

Flight compensation in “extraordinary circumstances”: The Supreme Court has its say

Related sectors & services.

• Arbitration
• Commercial Litigation
• Corporate & Shareholder Disputes
• Dispute Resolution
• Financial Services Litigation
• Fraud & Asset Recovery

Search for:

Jump straight to:

Please enter a search term

What sectors are you interested in?

We can use your selection to show you more of the content that you’re interested in.

Sign-up and we’ll remember your preferences

Sign-up to follow topics, sectors, people and also have the option to receive a weekly update of lastest news across your areas of interest.

Got an account already? Sign in

Want to speak to an advisor from your closest office?

Out-law / your daily need-to-know.

Out-Law Guide 4 min. read

Assignment and novation

19 Aug 2011, 4:40 pm

Assignment involves the transfer of an interest or benefit from one person to another. However the 'burden', or obligations, under a contract cannot be transferred.

Assignment in construction contracts

As noted above only the benefits of a contract can be assigned - not the burden. In the context of a building contract:

• the employer may assign its right to have the works constructed, and its right to sue the contractor in the event that the works are defective – but not its obligation to pay for the works;
• the contractor may assign its right to payment of the contract sum - but not its obligation to construct the works in accordance with the building contract or its obligation to meet any valid claims, for example for defects.

After assignment, the assignee is entitled to the benefit of the contract and to bring proceedings against the other contracting party to enforce its rights. The assignor still owes obligations to the other contracting party, and will remain liable to perform any part of the contract that still has to be fulfilled since the burden cannot be assigned. In practice, what usually happens is that the assignee takes over the performance of the contract with effect from assignment and the assignor will generally ask to be indemnified against any breach or failure to perform by the assignee.  The assignor will remain liable for any past liabilities incurred before the assignment.

In construction contracts, the issue of assignment often arises in looking at whether collateral warranties granted to parties outside of the main construction contract can be assigned.

Funders may require the developer to assign contractual rights against the contractor and the design team as security to the funder, as well as the benefit of performance bonds and parent company guarantees. The developer may assign such rights to the purchaser either during or after completion of the construction phase.

Contractual assignment provisions

Many contracts exclude or qualify the right to assignment, and the courts have confirmed that a clause which provides that a party to a contract may not assign the benefit of that contract without the consent of the other party is legally effective and will extend to all rights and benefits arising under the contract, including the right to any remedies. Other common qualifications on the right to assign include:

• a restriction on assignment without the consent of the other party, whether or not such consent is not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed;
• only one of the parties may assign;
• only certain rights may be assigned – for example, warranties and indemnities may be excluded;
• a limit on the number of assignments - as is almost always the case in respect of collateral warranties;
• a right to assign only to a named assignee or class of assignee.

Note that in some agreements where there is a prohibition on assignment, it is sometimes possible to find the reservation of specific rights to create a trust or establish security over the subject matter of the agreement instead.

Legal and equitable assignment

The Law of Property Act creates the ability to legally assign a debt or any other chose in action where the debtor, trustee or other relevant person is notified in writing. If the assignment complied with the formalities in the Act it is a legal assignment, otherwise it will be an equitable assignment.

Some transfers can only take effect as an equitable assignment, for example:

• an oral assignment;
• an assignment by way of charge;
• an assignment of only part of the chosen in action;
• an assignment of which notice has not been given to the debtor;
• an agreement to assign.

If the assignment is equitable rather than legal, the assignor cannot enforce the assigned property in its own name and to do so must join the assignee in any action. This is designed to protect the debtor from later proceedings brought by the assignor or another assignee from enforcing the action without notice of the earlier assignment.

Security assignments

Using assignment as a way of taking security requires special care, as follows:

• if the assignment is by way of charge, the assignor retains the right to sue for any loss it suffers caused by a breach of the other contract party;
• if there is an outright assignment coupled with an entitlement to a re-assignment back once the secured obligation has been performed, it is an assignment by way of legal mortgage.

Please see our separate Out-Law guide for more information on types of security.

Restrictions on assignment

There are restrictions on the assignment of certain types of interest on public policy grounds, as follows:

• certain personal contracts – for example, a contract for the employment of a personal servant or for the benefit of a motor insurance policy cannot be assigned;
• a bare cause of action or 'right to sue' where the assignee has no commercial interest in the subject matter of the underlying transaction cannot be assigned;
• certain rights conferred by statute – for example, a liquidator's powers to bring wrongful trading proceedings against a director – cannot be assigned;
• an assignment of a contract may not necessarily transfer the benefit of an arbitration agreement contained in the contract;
• the assignment of certain rights is regulated – for example, the assignment of company shares or copyright.

If you want to transfer the burden of a contract as well as the benefits under it, you have to novate. Like assignment, novation transfers the benefits under a contract but unlike assignment, novation transfers the burden under a contract as well.

In a novation the original contract is extinguished and is replaced by a new one in which a third party takes up rights and obligations which duplicate those of one of the original parties to the contract. Novation does not cancel past rights and obligations under the original contract, although the parties can agree to novate these as well.

Novation is only possible with the consent of the original contracting parties as well as the new party. Consideration (the 'price' paid, whether financial or otherwise, by the new party in return for the contract being novated to it) must be provided for this new contract unless the novation is documented in a deed signed by all three parties.

• Construction Contracts
• Construction
• Government and public sector
• Real Estate
• Technology, Science & Industry
• United Kingdom

Contact an adviser

Graham Alty

Latest News

Eu sanctions extended to non-targeted persons and aligned with us ‘ownership’ test, uk plastic packaging tax data shows environmental and economic impact, ‘blueprint’ for trust in use of health data outlined, consumer duty presents opportunity for increased communications with customers, ip advance: ip audits recommended as uk sme funding scheme outlined, don't miss a thing.

Sign-up to receive the latest news, analysis and events direct to your e-mail inbox

You might also like

Out-Law News

European Commission sets out plans for future connectivity

The European Commission has set out plans to improve telecommunications and digital infrastructure across the bloc in the coming years, starting with the next legislative term.

UK Budget 2024: general election battle lines become clearer

The UK chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Budget speech on Wednesday, and the response of Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer to it, provide an insight into how the forthcoming UK general election campaign will be fought, an expert in public policy has said.

UK announces Energy Charter Treaty withdrawal, citing need to focus on net zero strategy

The UK has announced that it will leave the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), due to what it described as the failure of efforts to align the Treaty with its net zero commitments.

UK government plans to revamp holiday pay calculation for part-year workers

Out-Law Analysis

Pensions disputes: managing member expectations paramount

UK subsidy control post-Brexit: access to effective judicial remedies

'Steps of court' settlement was not negligent, court rules

'Vast majority' of companies not seeking to avoid tax

'World first' industrial decarbonisation strategy developed in the UK

3D printing: UK product safety issues

5G potential for business highlighted in UK funding programme

Sectors and what we do

Sectors we work in.

• Financial Services
• Infrastructure
• Your assets
• Your company
• Your finance
• Your legal team and resource
• Your people
• Your risks and regulatory environment

Your privacy matters to us

We use cookies that are essential for our site to work. To improve our site, we would like to use additional cookies to help us understand how visitors use it, measure traffic to our site from social media platforms and to personalise your experience. Some of the cookies that we use are provided by third parties. To accept all cookies click ‘accept all’. To reject all optional cookies click ‘reject all’. To choose which optional cookies to allow click ‘cookie settings’. This tool uses a cookie to remember your choices. Please visit our cookie policy for more information.

Rethinking the “No Assignment” Provision

27 November 2023 20 November 2012 | Ken Adams

In this post , Brian Rogers explains how, as an experiment in crowdsourcing contract language, he has posted on Quora ( here ) his candidate for “the best anti-assignment provision in a contract ever.” He says that it’s “probably lifted” from Negotiating and Drafting Contract Boilerplate (Tina Stark ed. 2003) ( NDCB ). Here’s Brian’s provision:

Neither party may assign any of its rights under this agreement, either voluntarily or involuntarily, whether by merger, consolidation, dissolution, operation of law, or any other manner, except with the prior written consent of the other party. Neither party may delegate any performance under this agreement, except with the prior written consent of the other party. Any purported assignment of rights or delegation of performance in violation of this section is void.

It so happens that I’ve been idly contemplating shortcomings in standard no-assignment language. That’s something that I’ve tackled previously ( here ), and Brian’s post prodded me to revisit the topic.

I’ll start by offering the following comments on Brian’s provision:

• In the interest of consistency I prefer using “shall not” for language of prohibition, but that’s something I’m still exploring. Using “neither party may” works too.
• If you provide for the possibility of consent, it would be safest to assume that consent can’t be unreasonably withheld. If you have a problem with that, omit any mention of consent.
• Isn’t “voluntarily or involuntarily” needless elaboration, analogous to saying “I don’t eat fish, whether fresh-water or salt-water”?
• To avoid having to be all encompassing (“or in any other manner”), I’d use “including”.
• You might want to make it clear whether the prohibition applies to mergers regardless of whether the party is the surviving or disappearing entity (see this post ).
• The distinction between assigning rights and delegating obligations is pointless; in this context, “assign” and “delegate” constitute what I call “misapplied terms of art” (see this post ). Because the provision refers to what is being assigned and delegated, a generic alternative to both words would work just as well, and I opt for “transfer”. Regarding that choice, NDCB , at 56, says, “The problem, however, is that there are reams of cases that analyze ‘assign,’ but not ‘transfer.’ If ‘transfer’ were used alone, the precedential value of the existing cases might be compromised. Moreover, the cases already question the meaning of ‘transfer.'” This doesn’t worry me, as the context makes it clear what’s going on.
• It’s unclear what “rights” refers to. (I don’t use the word “rights” anywhere in MSCD .) I think it refers to discretion granted to a party under an agreement and any remedy that a party has under an agreement, and I’d rather make that explicit.
• By referring to delegation of performance rather than delegation of obligations, Brian’s provision seeks to reflect that a party might delegate not only a duty but also a condition. See NDCB at 26, 74. But I think it’s unrealistic to expect readers to deduce that nuance from a reference to delegation of performance; it would be better to make it explicit.
• The last sentence is language of policy. I suggest that because it relates to a contingent future event, most native English speakers would say “will be void” rather than “is void”.

So here’s my initial version (it’s certain to change) [ Updated 9 August 2016: Language tidied up]:

Except with the prior written consent of the other party, each party shall not transfer, including by merger (whether that party is the surviving or disappearing entity), consolidation, dissolution, or operation of law, (1) any discretion granted under this agreement, (2) any right to satisfy a condition under this agreement, (3) any remedy under this agreement, or (4) any obligation imposed under this agreement. Any purported transfer in violation of this section X will be void.

Because my version makes explicit what Brian’s version only alludes to, it’s longer, but not by much (85 words versus 72 words).

I’ve posted my version on Quora, under Brian’s. (Hey, Brian! In. Yo. Face!) But crowdsourcing is still no way to identify optimal contract language. In particular, I wouldn’t rely on contract language select by haphazard vote. Instead, what you have here is the usual process of Brian, me, and others hashing stuff out. I look forward to having readers point out the weaknesses in my version.

[ Updated 27 November 2023: Bear in mind that in some contexts—notably bankruptcy—no-transfer provisions are unenforceable by law. See my 2014 article on termination-on-bankruptcy provisions, here .]

About the author

Ken Adams is the leading authority on how to say clearly whatever you want to say in a contract. He’s author of  A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting , and he offers online and in-person training around the world. He’s also chief content officer of LegalSifter, Inc., a company that combines artificial intelligence and expertise to assist with review of contracts.

17 thoughts on “Rethinking the “No Assignment” Provision”

I have several concerns here. First, I have never been happy with the “each party shall not” formulation. I don’t mind “may not,” or better yet, “no party may,” but if you really want to use “shall not,” then I recommend “a party shall not” as being less awkward and contrary to normal usage.

Second, I’m surprised that you would allow “by operation of law” to survive here. For the most part, this phrase is used to refer to the “automagic” continuation of the disappearing company’s contracts under the aegis of the surviving company in a merger, in which case the language is redundant when you’ve already discussed mergers. Moreover, if this language relates to some other operations of law, for example an order of a bankruptcy court, it’s rather hubristic to think a contract can trump the ruling authority. Better, if it’s such a big deal, to handle the consequences of such a mandated transfer by giving the affected party an explicit termination right (without the nasty consequences of breach).

Third, in my experience the issues surrounding “delegation” are not only that it’s a misapplied term of art, but that it mistakes the transfer of a contractual obligation for a subcontracting of its performance. In fact, reliance on delegation or transfer is misplaced if one is concerned about subcontracting (since it doesn’t really amount to a transfer of any contractual obligation, only having that obligation physically performed by someone else). A drafter should inquire carefully what the client is really concerned about here, and if it’s subcontracting, that should be explicitly mentioned.

Ah, thank you Vance. I thought My discomfort with ‘delegate’ was a translation issue from US to UK English. I,too, Think that is the wrong word to use.

“No purported transfer of one or more of the following arising from this agreement will be valid without prior written consent of the other party: (1) discretion, (2) right to satisfy a condition, (3) remedy under this agreement, and (4) obligation.”

Other than light trimming, the principal thing this version does is dump the duty not to transfer and go solely with the avoidance of purported transfers. Why prohibit killing the dead?

Because failure to comply with a prohibition gives rise to a remedy; voiding purported transfers doesn’t. I can imagine situations where that might be significant.

No one can fail to comply with a prohibition against transfer when purported transfers are void. Void transfers are non-transfers. Killing the dead isn’t wicked, it’s just impossible.

It’s wicked and depraved! Actually, what happens if Acme makes a purported assignment that results in costly and protracted litigation? Widgetco would like to be able to go after Acme. Wouldn’t that be easier if Widgetco could point to breach? Should the obligation refer to not attempting to transfer?

“Any purported transfer by Acme, without Widgetco’s advance written consent, of one or more of Acme’s rights or obligations under this agreement will be void and will constitute a breach of this agreement.”

This game is based so much on underlying US laws on the meaning of assignment, merger, etc, that it is impossible for a non-US lawyer to participate. We don’t generally have mergers where a party disappears into a puff of smoke. A sale of a business [nearly] always happens by a sale of shares or a sale of assets.

I think the concept of assigning rights under a contract is well established in case law and using different terminology is reinventing the wheel.

I think the “if you do it despite the prohibition, it will be void” concept is strange, but one that I have seen before in US contracts. I don’t think it works, under English law, in respect of prohibitions on assignments of IP. I am doubtful whether it works for assignments of rights under contracts.

For what it is worth, my English law version would be very different and would simply say:

Neither party may assign any rights, or transfer any obligations, under this agreement, without the prior written agreement of the parties.

I have used the word “agreement” rather than “consent” to try to avoid case law on whether a term should be implied that consent should not be unreasonably withheld. The terminology of assignment and transfer is based on a House of Lords case, Linden Gardens v Lenesta Sludge – see http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1993/4.html

As usual, caselaw is of less interest to me than the scope for confusion. I suspect that if you ask many lawyers what is meant by assignment of rights under a contract, you’d get quite a variety of answers.

Okay, Ken I’ll take your word for it. English lawyers who keep Chitty on Contracts under their pillows won’t be so variegated

Mark: Regarding your statement, “I think the ‘if you do it despite the prohibition, it will be void’ concept is strange, but one that I have seen before in US contracts,” consider the probable source of such provisions:

Since U.S. contract law is the province of the states, we have the high court of each of the 50 states reviewing the handiwork of probably twice that number of state appellate courts, which in turn have reviewed the work of probably thousands of trial courts. In addition, we have almost 90 federal district courts trying to predict how the supreme courts of the various states would rule if they were hearing the contracts cases that have fallen into the laps of the federal courts due to accidents of jurisdiction, plus the dozen courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. Then there are specialty federal courts such as the bankruptcy and tax courts which provide an additional source of cases for the federal district and appellate courts to review. And did I mention the extensive administrative law system that probably dwarfs all of the above in scope and which I’m sure has plenty to say about contracts?

Somewhere, sometime in the distant past one of those courts had an unfortunate fact pattern and, wanting to avoid the effect of an anti-assignment provision, decided that although the purported assignment was a breach of the contract in which it was found, the assignment was still effective. Other courts picked up on the work-around, and commercial lawyers have all been covering that base ever since.

Thanks Brian, interesting insight. I would have posted on your site but For the reasons given above I didn’t have a useful contribution.

• Pingback: Koncision » Quora as a Source of Misinformation

The language as being quoted from Negotiating and Drafting Boilerplate is incomplete. Here is the full language, along with explanations of some of the text. Many of my points will be at odds with those of Ken and arise because of differences in drafting philosophy.

Assignment and Delegation.

(a) No Assignments. No party may assign any of its rights under this Agreement, except with the prior written consent of the other party. [That party shall not unreasonably withhold its consent.] All assignments of rights are prohibited under this subsection, whether they are voluntary or involuntary, by merger, consolidation, dissolution, operation of law, or any other manner. For purposes of this Section,

(i) a “change of control” is deemed an assignment of rights; and

(ii) “merger” refers to any merger in which a party participates, regardless of whether it is the surviving or disappearing corporation.

(b) No Delegations. No party may delegate any performance under this Agreement.

(c) Consequences of Purported Assignment or Delegation. Any purported assignment of rights or delegation of performance in violation of this Section is void.

1. The provision is divided into three separate subsections, each dealing with a different topic. A long provision violates the so-called “three-line rule.” Sentences longer than three lines are hard for the reader to take in. Also, by separating assignment from delegation, the drafter is reminded that each of these provisions may need to be elaborated based on facts. (Perhaps delegation is permitted subject to certain conditions.)

2. Generally, exceptions should not begin a sentence. The usual rule is to state the rule – so that the reader has context – and then state the exception. This is also helpful if the sentence contains multiple exceptions that the drafter might want to tabulate.

3. I prefer “No party may” to “Each party shall not.” The sentence’s purpose is to express a prohibition that applies to all – no one can do it. In this context, a negative subject is appropriate: no party/neither party. When using a negative subject “may” is correct. “Shall not” works perfectly well when the subject of the sentence is a single party. “Sam shall not borrow any money.”

4. As to whether consent can be unreasonably withheld is a matter of state law. Some states read into a provision that grants discretionary authority an implied promise of good faith and fair dealing, stated differently, they read in reasonableness. Others do not imply a reasonableness requirement. For example, in New York, landlords may be unreasonable in denying consent to assignment.

5. Courts seriously dislike anti-assignment provisions. They view them as interfering with the free flow of commerce. They insist that if a particular assignment is to be prohibited, it must be listed. For example, if a provision prohibits the assignment of rights, the issue arises as to whether the provision prohibits the assignment of rights by merger. In all states that I’ve checked, unless the assignment by merger is explicitly prohibited, it’s permitted. The courts are rather adamant. They’ll turn their decisions inside out to find the anti-assignment provision unenforceable. They don’t like them and if the provision isn’t explicit, the courts will say that if the parties had really wanted to prohibit assignments by merger, they knew how to use their words. “Voluntarily or involuntarily” is used consistent with these cases.

6. Drafters have tried multiple ways to create all-inclusive provisions, but the courts reject them as not having been specific. “or in any other manner” was blessed by one court, so it’s used in the provision. Another court rejected the phrase “or by any other transfer,” stating that it did not know what “transfer” meant and it therefore could not act as an omnibus savings provision.

7. An anti-assignment provision should also address whether a change of control is deemed an assignment. If Parent Company A sells all of its issued and outstanding shares in Subsidiary A to Buyer Company, Subsidiary A becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of Buyer Company. Nothing has happened at the Subsidiary A level; there’s been no assignment. Courts hold that unless the change of control is expressly prohibited, it does not rise to the level of an assignment. This prohibition can generally be accomplished in one of two ways: either through a definition, as in the stated provision, or by including a change of control as a default.

8. Assignment and delegation are terms of art, not misapplied terms of art. The Restatement (Second) of Contracts carefully defines them, as do legions of cases. Unfortunately, some lawyers are unfamiliar with them because their contracts courses didn’t cover them. That doesn’t mean new words should be created.

9. Rights are the flip-side of an obligation. If I have an obligation to pay you $100, you have a right to my performance. The transfer of the right to performance is what the assignment is all about. It’s technical. Using terms in a technical way creates precision. If one has discretionary authority, that is a colloquial right but not a contract right. That’s the reason why “right” is not used to signal discretionary authority. Instead, the correct verb to signal discretionary authority is “may”. Incorrect: The publisher has the right to reject the book. Correct: The publisher may reject the book.

Rights can also refer to remedies, but that is consistent with the definition of rights. If a party has a right to have its deposit returned, the flipside obligation is the obligation to return it. If a party has a right to an injunction, the flipside obligation is the promise not to contest the right to the injunction.

10. “Will be void” v. “is void.” I can’t get too excited about this issue. I start from the premise that the contract should always read as if it presently applies and that, therefore, the present tense is correct.

11. Subsection (c) is another consequence of the courts’ dislike for anti-assignment provisions. Mere prohibition does not void the assignment. The courts draw a distinction between the “right” to assign and the “power” to assignment. A flat prohibition merely prohibits the assignment of the right to assignment. Violation of the prohibition is a breach, like any other contract breach. The assignment is enforceable, but gives rise to damages. Unfortunately, the nonassigning party often has trouble finding damages to claim. What difference does it make to whom it pays money? If the nonassigning party’s performance is somehow changed, then damages might be claimed. To make the purported assignment unenforceable, a provision must take away the “power” to assign. That is accomplished through language along the lines of subjection (c).

Tina: Thanks; some readers might find that extract helpful.

More generally, the only drafting philosophy I buy into is identifying the clearest contract language.

Do you see any issues with making the transfer voidable by the non-transferring party instead of void ab initio?

• Pingback: Koncision » What Is a Contract “Right”?

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

The voice that matters.

Innovative scholarship. Extensive writings. Hundreds of  Drafting Clearer Contracts  presentations around the world. Commitment. That’s what makes Ken Adams the unmatched authority on clearer contract language.

164 Brompton Road Garden City, NY 11530-1432

(516) 318-6956

[email protected]

© 2024 Kenneth A. Adams

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

No Assignment Contract Clauses (923)

Grouped into 44 collections of similar clauses from business contracts.

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

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 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

Louisiana Law Blog

Insight and Information on Louisiana Law, Litigation, and Legal Culture

Withholding Consent to Assignment – What is Reasonable?

Very often, contracts prohibit assignment without the other party’s consent. If you think you might ever want to assign a contract (bearing in mind that a merger or sale of the business can trigger assignment), then this kind of provision should generally be modified by adding that the other party’s consent cannot be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.

Without this language, consent can generally be withheld as long as doing so does not rise to the level of “abuse of rights,” a theory difficult to prove (i.e., proof of intent to harm or a violation of good faith is required).

Adding the language recommended above will require the other party to demonstrate some legitimate reason for denying consent, such as the proposed assignee is financially inferior to the assignor; the assignor is in default; or the proposed assignee cannot comply with the existing terms of the subject agreement.

In a recent case, the court found that a landlord withholding consent for competitive reasons was not reasonable (i.e. the proposed assignee would be operating a business competitive with the landlord’s nearby business). Tenet HealthSystem Surgical, L.L.C. v. Jefferson Parish Hosp. Service Dist. No. 1, 426 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2005). The court noted that the landlord’s objection must be based on ownership and operation of the leased property, not the landlord’s “general economic interest.” The court held that the competitive concerns did not relate in any way to an objective evaluation of the proposed assignee as a tenant and were not a reasonable basis for denying consent. This is the first time Louisiana contract law has been interpreted in this fashion. Historically, economic reasons were a permitted basis for refusing consent to assignment.

Avoid becoming trapped into contracts, including leases, by making sure the other party must act reasonably if you need to request consent to assignment. On the flip side, be aware that if your consent to assignment is requested, refusing to grant it for competitive reasons may trigger a claim that you’ve breached the contract. Whether you can successfully defend such a claim will depend largely on the wording of the assignment provision and whether it expressly permits withholding consent for competitive reasons.

How Is a Contract Assigned?

(page 2 of 2 of what is an assignment of contract).

You'll need to follow three basic steps to assign a contract .

Step 1: Examine the contract for any limitations or prohibitions. Check for anti-assignment clauses. Sometimes the prohibition is not a separate clause but is included in another provision. Look for language that states, "This agreement may not be assigned." If you find such language, you may not be able to assign the agreement unless the other party consents.

Step 2: Execute an assignment. If you are not prohibited from assigning the contract, prepare and enter into an assignment of contract: an agreement that transfers the parties' rights and obligations.

Step 3: Provide notice to the obligor. After you have assigned your contract rights to the assignee, you should provide notice to the other original contracting party (referred to as the obligor). This notice will effectively relieve you of any liability under the contract unless the contract says differently (for instance, if the contract says that the assignor guarantees the performance of the assigned contract or the contract prohibits an assignment) or the assignment is prohibited by law.

• Anti-Assignment Clauses

If you're making a contract and you don't want assignment to be an option, you need to clearly state that in your agreement. Below are three variations of anti-assignment clauses that can be used in a contract.

EXAMPLE 1: Consent Required for Assignment

Assignment. Neither party may assign or delegate its rights or obligations pursuant to this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other. Any assignment or delegation in violation of this section shall be void.

EXAMPLE 2: Consent Not Needed for Affiliates or New Owners

Assignment. Neither party may assign or delegate its rights or obligations pursuant to this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other. However, no consent is required for an assignment that occurs (a) to an entity in which the transferring party owns more than 50% of the assets, or (b) as part of a transfer of all or substantially all of the assets of the transferring party to any party. Any assignment or delegation in violation of this section shall be void.

EXAMPLE 3: Consent Not Unreasonably Withheld

Assignment. Neither party may assign or delegate its rights or obligations pursuant to this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any assignment or delegation in violation of this section shall be void.

Anti-assignment clauses can also be modified to prohibit only one of the parties from assigning rights. Also, when preparing an anti-assignment clause, keep in mind that you can prevent only "voluntary" assignments; you can't prevent assignments that are ordered by a court or that are mandatory under law—for example, in a bankruptcy proceeding.

Thank you for your feedback

Please explain why

Based on Your Previous Answers, We Have a Few Last Questions

These additional details allow our attorneys to gain a deeper understanding of the specifics of your case

How It Works

• Briefly tell us about your case
• Provide your contact information
• Choose attorneys to contact you

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Nolo ® Self-help services may not be permitted in all states. The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or will be formed by use of the site. The attorney listings on this site are paid attorney advertising. In some states, the information on this website may be considered a lawyer referral service. Please reference the Terms of Use and the Supplemental Terms for specific information related to your state. Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use , Supplemental Terms , Privacy Policy , Cookie Policy , and Consumer Health Data Notice .

• 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).

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

A detailed analysis of provisions related to coercions under the indian contract law, free consent (section 13 & 14), a detailed analysis of provisions related to compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract under the indian contract law, editor picks, popular posts, maneka gandhi vs union of india – case summary, contract of bailment and pledge, adm jabalpur vs shivkant shukla (1976) 2 scc 521 – case..., popular category.

• NEWS UPDATE 1751
• Case Summary 363
• Legal Maxims 269
• Articles 177
• Bare Act PDF 128
• Indian Penal Code 104
• Articles 86
• Voice of Women 72

• Practical Law

Contracts: assignment

Practical law uk practice note 7-381-7509  (approx. 44 pages), get full access to this document with a free trial.

Try free and see for yourself how Practical Law resources can improve productivity, efficiency and response times.

About Practical Law

This document is from Thomson Reuters Practical Law, the legal know-how that goes beyond primary law and traditional legal research to give lawyers a better starting point. We provide standard documents, checklists, legal updates, how-to guides, and more.

650+ full-time experienced lawyer editors globally create and maintain timely, reliable and accurate resources across all major practice areas.

83% of customers are highly satisfied with Practical Law and would recommend to a colleague.

81% of customers agree that Practical Law saves them time.

• Warranties, Indemnities and Transaction Issues
• Pre-action Conduct
• Contracts and Deeds - Land and Buildings
• General Contract and Boilerplate
• General contract and boilerplate

• You must be logged in to view this page.

Introduction

These terms and conditions govern your use of https://tradenet.plumbingplus.com.au (“website”) ; by using this website, you accept these terms and conditions in full. If you disagree with these terms and conditions or any part of these terms and conditions, you must not use this website.

License to use website

Unless otherwise stated, Plumbing Plus and/or its licensors own the intellectual property rights in the website and material on the website. Subject to the license below, all these intellectual property rights are reserved.

You may view, download for caching purposes only, and print pages from the website for your own personal use, subject to the restrictions set out below and elsewhere in these terms and conditions.

You must not:

• republish material from this website (including republication on another website);
• sell, rent or sub-license material from the website;
• show any material from the website in public;
• reproduce, duplicate, copy or otherwise exploit material on this website for a commercial purpose;
• edit or otherwise modify any material on the website; or
• redistribute material from this website.

Where content is specifically made available for redistribution, it may only be redistributed within your organisation.

Acceptable use

You must not use this website in any way that causes, or may cause, damage to the website or impairment of the availability or accessibility of the website; or in any way which is unlawful, illegal, fraudulent or harmful, or in connection with any unlawful, illegal, fraudulent or harmful purpose or activity.

You must not use this website to copy, store, host, transmit, send, use, publish or distribute any material which consists of (or is linked to) any spyware, computer virus, Trojan horse, worm, keystroke logger, rootkit or other malicious computer software.

You must not conduct any systematic or automated data collection activities (including without limitation scraping, data mining, data extraction and data harvesting) on or in relation to this website without Plumbing Plus’s express written consent.

You must not use this website for any purposes related to marketing without Plumbing Plus’s express written consent.

Restricted access

Plumbing Plus reserves the right to restrict access to [other] areas of this website, or indeed this entire website, at Plumbing Plus’s discretion.

If Plumbing Plus provides you with a user ID and password to enable you to access restricted areas of this website or other content or services, you must ensure that the user ID and password are kept confidential.

Plumbing Plus may disable your user ID and password in Plumbing Plus’s sole discretion without notice or explanation.

User content

In these terms and conditions, your user content means material (including without limitation text, images, audio material, video material and audio-visual material) that you submit to this website, for whatever purpose.

You grant to Plumbing Plus a worldwide, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, adapt, publish, translate and distribute your user content in any existing or future media. You also grant to Plumbing Plus the right to sub-license these rights, and the right to bring an action for infringement of these rights.

Your user content must not be illegal or unlawful, must not infringe any third party’s legal rights, and must not be capable of giving rise to legal action whether against you or Plumbing Plus or a third party (in each case under any applicable law).

You must not submit any user content to the website that is or has ever been the subject of any threatened or actual legal proceedings or other similar complaint.

Plumbing Plus reserves the right to edit or remove any material submitted to this website, or stored on Plumbing Plus’s servers, or hosted or published upon this website.

Notwithstanding Plumbing Plus’s rights under these terms and conditions in relation to user content, Plumbing Plus does not undertake to monitor the submission of such content to, or the publication of such content on, this website.

No warranties

This website is provided as is without any representations or warranties, express or implied. Plumbing Plus makes no representations or warranties in relation to this website or the information and materials provided on this website.

Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing paragraph, Plumbing Plus does not warrant that:

• this website will be constantly available, or available at all; or
• the information on this website is complete, true, accurate or non-misleading.

Nothing on this website constitutes, or is meant to constitute, advice of any kind. If you require advice in relation to any matter you should consult an appropriate professional.

Limitations of liability

Plumbing Plus will not be liable to you (whether under the law of contract, the law of torts or otherwise) in relation to the contents of, or use of, or otherwise in connection with, this website:

• to the extent that the website is provided free-of-charge, for any direct loss;
• for any indirect, special or consequential loss; or
• for any business losses, loss of revenue, income, profits or anticipated savings, loss of contracts or business relationships, loss of reputation or goodwill, or loss or corruption of information or data.

These limitations of liability apply even if Plumbing Plus has been expressly advised of the potential loss.

Nothing in this website disclaimer will exclude or limit any warranty implied by law that it would be unlawful to exclude or limit; and nothing in this website disclaimer will exclude or limit Plumbing Plus’s liability in respect of any:

• death or personal injury caused by Plumbing Plus’s negligence;
• fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of Plumbing Plus; or
• matter which it would be illegal or unlawful for Plumbing Plus to exclude or limit, or to attempt or purport to exclude or limit, its liability.

Reasonableness

By using this website, you agree that the exclusions and limitations of liability set out in this website disclaimer are reasonable.

If you do not think they are reasonable, you must not use this website.

Other parties

You accept that, as a limited liability entity, Plumbing Plus has an interest in limiting the personal liability of its officers and employees. You agree that you will not bring any claim personally against Plumbing Plus’s officers or employees in respect of any losses you suffer in connection with the website.

Without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, you agree that the limitations of warranties and liability set out in this website disclaimer will protect Plumbing Plus’s officers, employees, agents, subsidiaries, successors, assigns and sub-contractors as well as Plumbing Plus.

Unenforceable provisions

If any provision of this website disclaimer is, or is found to be, unenforceable under applicable law, that will not affect the enforceability of the other provisions of this website disclaimer.

You hereby indemnify Plumbing Plus and undertake to keep Plumbing Plus indemnified against any losses, damages, costs, liabilities and expenses (including without limitation legal expenses and any amounts paid by Plumbing Plus to a third party in settlement of a claim or dispute on the advice of Plumbing Plus’s legal advisers) incurred or suffered by Plumbing Plus arising out of any breach by you of any provision of these terms and conditions, or arising out of any claim that you have breached any provision of these terms and conditions.

Breaches of these terms and conditions

Without prejudice to Plumbing Plus’s other rights under these terms and conditions, if you breach these terms and conditions in any way, Plumbing Plus may take such action as Plumbing Plus deems appropriate to deal with the breach, including suspending your access to the website, prohibiting you from accessing the website, blocking computers using your IP address from accessing the website, contacting your internet service provider to request that they block your access to the website and/or bringing court proceedings against you.

Plumbing Plus may revise these terms and conditions from time-to-time. Revised terms and conditions will apply to the use of this website from the date of the publication of the revised terms and conditions on this website. Please check this page regularly to ensure you are familiar with the current version.

Plumbing Plus may transfer, sub-contract or otherwise deal with Plumbing Plus’s rights and/or obligations under these terms and conditions without notifying you or obtaining your consent.

You may not transfer, sub-contract or otherwise deal with your rights and/or obligations under these terms and conditions.

Severability

If a provision of these terms and conditions is determined by any court or other competent authority to be unlawful and/or unenforceable, the other provisions will continue in effect. If any unlawful and/or unenforceable provision would be lawful or enforceable if part of it were deleted, that part will be deemed to be deleted, and the rest of the provision will continue in effect.

Entire agreement

These terms and conditions constitute the entire agreement between you and Plumbing Plus in relation to your use of this website, and supersede all previous agreements in respect of your use of this website.

Law and jurisdiction

These terms and conditions will be governed by and construed in accordance with Australian law, and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Victoria, Australia.

Plumbing Plus’s details

Plumbing Plus’s address is:

R18, Level 2 717 Bourke Street Docklands Vic 3008 Australia

You can contact Plumbing Plus by email to [email protected]