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 Clause

Get free proposals from vetted lawyers in our marketplace.

Contract Clauses

• Acceleration Clause
• Arbitration Clause
• Cancellation Clause
• Choice of Law Clause
• Confidentiality Clause
• Consideration Clause
• Definitions Clause
• Dispute Resolution Clause
• Entire Agreement Clause
• Escalation Clause
• Exclusivity Clause
• Exculpatory Clause
• Force Majeure Clause
• Governing Law Clause
• Indemnification Clause
• Indemnity Clause
• Insurance Clause
• Integration Clause
• Merger Clause
• Non-Competition Clause
• Non-Disparagement Clause
• Non-Exclusivity Clause
• Non-Solicitation Clause
• Privacy Clause
• Release Clause
• Severability Clause
• Subordination Clause
• Subrogation Clause
• Survival Clause
• Termination Clause
• Time of Essence Clause

Jump to Section

Assignment clause defined.

Assignment clauses are legally binding provisions in contracts that give a party the chance to engage in a transfer of ownership or assign their contractual obligations and rights to a different contracting party.

In other words, an assignment clause can reassign contracts to another party. They can commonly be seen in contracts related to business purchases.

Here’s an article about assignment clauses.

Assignment Clause Explained

Assignment contracts are helpful when you need to maintain an ongoing obligation regardless of ownership. Some agreements have limitations or prohibitions on assignments, while other parties can freely enter into them.

Here’s another article about assignment clauses.

Purpose of Assignment Clause

The purpose of assignment clauses is to establish the terms around transferring contractual obligations. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) permits the enforceability of assignment clauses.

Assignment Clause Examples

Examples of assignment clauses include:

• Example 1 . A business closing or a change of control occurs
• Example 2 . New services providers taking over existing customer contracts
• Example 3 . Unique real estate obligations transferring to a new property owner as a condition of sale
• Example 4 . Many mergers and acquisitions transactions, such as insurance companies taking over customer policies during a merger

Here’s an article about the different types of assignment clauses.

Assignment Clause Samples

Sample 1 – sales contract.

Assignment; Survival .  Neither party shall assign all or any portion of the Contract without the other party’s prior written consent, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld; provided, however, that either party may, without such consent, assign this Agreement, in whole or in part, in connection with the transfer or sale of all or substantially all of the assets or business of such Party relating to the product(s) to which this Agreement relates. The Contract shall bind and inure to the benefit of the successors and permitted assigns of the respective parties. Any assignment or transfer not in accordance with this Contract shall be void. In order that the parties may fully exercise their rights and perform their obligations arising under the Contract, any provisions of the Contract that are required to ensure such exercise or performance (including any obligation accrued as of the termination date) shall survive the termination of the Contract.

Reference :

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database,  EX-10.29 3 dex1029.htm SALES CONTRACT , Viewed May 10, 2021, <  https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1492426/000119312510226984/dex1029.htm >.

Sample 2 – Purchase and Sale Agreement

Assignment . Purchaser shall not assign this Agreement or any interest therein to any Person, without the prior written consent of Seller, which consent may be withheld in Seller’s sole discretion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon prior written notice to Seller, Purchaser may designate any Affiliate as its nominee to receive title to the Property, or assign all of its right, title and interest in this Agreement to any Affiliate of Purchaser by providing written notice to Seller no later than five (5) Business Days prior to the Closing; provided, however, that (a) such Affiliate remains an Affiliate of Purchaser, (b) Purchaser shall not be released from any of its liabilities and obligations under this Agreement by reason of such designation or assignment, (c) such designation or assignment shall not be effective until Purchaser has provided Seller with a fully executed copy of such designation or assignment and assumption instrument, which shall (i) provide that Purchaser and such designee or assignee shall be jointly and severally liable for all liabilities and obligations of Purchaser under this Agreement, (ii) provide that Purchaser and its designee or assignee agree to pay any additional transfer tax as a result of such designation or assignment, (iii) include a representation and warranty in favor of Seller that all representations and warranties made by Purchaser in this Agreement are true and correct with respect to such designee or assignee as of the date of such designation or assignment, and will be true and correct as of the Closing, and (iv) otherwise be in form and substance satisfactory to Seller and (d) such Assignee is approved by Manager as an assignee of the Management Agreement under Article X of the Management Agreement. For purposes of this Section 16.4, “Affiliate” shall include any direct or indirect member or shareholder of the Person in question, in addition to any Person that would be deemed an Affiliate pursuant to the definition of “Affiliate” under Section 1.1 hereof and not by way of limitation of such definition.

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database,  EX-10.8 3 dex108.htm PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT , Viewed May 10, 2021, < https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1490985/000119312510160407/dex108.htm >.

Sample 3 – Share Purchase Agreement

Assignment . Neither this Agreement nor any right or obligation hereunder may be assigned by any Party without the prior written consent of the other Parties, and any attempted assignment without the required consents shall be void.

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database,  EX-4.12 3 dex412.htm SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT , Viewed May 10, 2021, < https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1329394/000119312507148404/dex412.htm >.

Sample 4 – Asset Purchase Agreement

Assignment . This Agreement and any of the rights, interests, or obligations incurred hereunder, in part or as a whole, at any time after the Closing, are freely assignable by Buyer. This Agreement and any of the rights, interests, or obligations incurred hereunder, in part or as a whole, are assignable by Seller only upon the prior written consent of Buyer, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. This Agreement will be binding upon, inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns.

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database,  EX-2.1 2 dex21.htm ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT , Viewed May 10, 2021, < https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1428669/000119312510013625/dex21.htm >.

Sample 5 – Asset Purchase Agreement

Assignment; Binding Effect; Severability

This Agreement may not be assigned by any party hereto without the other party’s written consent; provided, that Buyer may transfer or assign in whole or in part to one or more Buyer Designee its right to purchase all or a portion of the Purchased Assets, but no such transfer or assignment will relieve Buyer of its obligations hereunder. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the successors, legal representatives and permitted assigns of each party hereto. The provisions of this Agreement are severable, and in the event that any one or more provisions are deemed illegal or unenforceable the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect unless the deletion of such provision shall cause this Agreement to become materially adverse to either party, in which event the parties shall use reasonable commercial efforts to arrive at an accommodation that best preserves for the parties the benefits and obligations of the offending provision.

Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database,  EX-2.4 2 dex24.htm ASSET PURCHASE AGREEMENT , Viewed May 10, 2021, < https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1002047/000119312511171858/dex24.htm >.

Common Contracts with Assignment Clauses

Common contracts with assignment clauses include:

• Real estate contracts
• Sales contract
• Asset purchase agreement
• Purchase and sale agreement
• Bill of sale
• Assignment and transaction financing agreement

Assignment Clause FAQs

Assignment clauses are powerful when used correctly. Check out the assignment clause FAQs below to learn more:

What is an assignment clause in real estate?

Assignment clauses in real estate transfer legal obligations from one owner to another party. They also allow house flippers to engage in a contract negotiation with a seller and then assign the real estate to the buyer while collecting a fee for their services. Real estate lawyers assist in the drafting of assignment clauses in real estate transactions.

What does no assignment clause mean?

No assignment clauses prohibit the transfer or assignment of contract obligations from one part to another.

What’s the purpose of the transfer and assignment clause in the purchase agreement?

The purpose of the transfer and assignment clause in the purchase agreement is to protect all involved parties’ rights and ensure that assignments are not to be unreasonably withheld. Contract lawyers can help you avoid legal mistakes when drafting your business contracts’ transfer and assignment clauses.

Nicholas M.

Meet some of our lawyers.

A business-oriented, proactive, and problem-solving corporate lawyer with in-house counsel experience, ensuring the legality of commercial transactions and contracts. Michael is adept in reviewing, drafting, negotiating, and generally overseeing policies, procedures, handbooks, corporate documents, and more importantly, contracts. He has a proven track record of helping lead domestic and international companies by ensuring they are functioning in complete compliance with local and international rules and regulations.

I'm an experienced trademark attorney and enjoy helping clients protect and grow their brand names through trademark registration and enforcement. I've worked with a wide variety of clients in different industries, including e-commerce, software as a service (SaaS), and consumer goods, to register trademarks for product names, logos, and slogans, both in the US and abroad.

Businesses, Contracts, Operating Agreements, Corporate, Real Estate, Start-Ups, Cannabis

Drew is an entrepreneurial business attorney with over twenty years of corporate, compliance and litigation experience. Drew currently has his own firm where he focuses on providing outsourced general counsel and compliance services (including mergers & acquisitions, collections, capital raising, real estate, business litigation, commercial contracts and employment matters). Drew has deep experience counseling clients in healthcare, medical device, pharmaceuticals, information technology, manufacturing, and services.

Daniel is an experienced corporate attorney and works closely with corporations, privately held companies, high-net worth individuals, family offices, start-ups and entrepreneurs. Daniel graduated from the Gonzaga University School of Law and is licensed to practice law in Illinois.

12 Year PQE Lawyer with wide experience in sports, media and tech.

Find the best lawyer for your project

Contract lawyers by city.

• Atlanta Contract Lawyers
• Austin Contract Lawyers
• Boston Contract Lawyers
• Chicago Contract Lawyers
• Dallas Contract Lawyers
• Denver Contract Lawyers
• Fort Lauderdale Contract Lawyers
• Houston Contract Lawyers
• Las Vegas Contract Lawyers
• Los Angeles Contract Lawyers
• Memphis Contract Lawyers
• Miami Contract Lawyers
• New York Contract Lawyers
• Oklahoma City Contract Lawyers
• Orlando Contract Lawyers
• Philadelphia Contract Lawyers
• Phoenix Contract Lawyers
• Richmond Contract Lawyers
• Salt Lake City Contract Lawyers
• San Antonio Contract Lawyers
• San Diego Contract Lawyers
• San Francisco Contract Lawyers
• Seattle Contract Lawyers
• Tampa Contract Lawyers

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

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

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

14.1: Assignment of Contract Rights

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 19021

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

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

The Concept of a Contract Assignment

Contracts create rights and duties. By an assignment , an obligee (one who has the right to receive a contract benefit) transfers a right to receive a contract benefit owed by the obligor (the one who has a duty to perform) to a third person ( assignee ); the obligee then becomes an assignor (one who makes an assignment).

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

Figure 14.1 Assignment of Rights

Method of Assignment

Manifesting assent.

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

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

Acceptance and Revocation

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

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

Effect of Assignment

General rule.

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

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

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

When Assignments Are Not Allowed

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

Material Change in Duties of the Obligor

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

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

Assignment of Personal Rights

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

Assignment Forbidden by Statute or Public Policy

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

Contracts That Prohibit Assignment

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

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

Future Contracts

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

Partial Assignments

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

Successive Assignments

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

Some states follow the different English rule: the first assignee to give notice to the obligor has priority, regardless of the order in which the assignments were made. Furthermore, if the assignment falls within the filing requirements of UCC Article 9 (see Chapter 22 "Secured Transactions and Suretyship" ), the first assignee to file will prevail.

Figure 14.2 Successive Assignments

Assignor’s Warranties

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

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated October 29, 2020:

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

What Is an Assignment of Contract?

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

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

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

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

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

How Assignments Work

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

When Assignments Will Not Be Enforced

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

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

Delegation vs. Assignment

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

Characteristics of Assignments

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

Three Steps to Follow if You Want to Assign a Contract

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

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

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

Anti-Assignment Clauses

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

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

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

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

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

Content Approved by UpCounsel

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

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

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    Norway    Oman    Poland    Portugal    Romania    Saudi Arabia    Serbia    Slovakia    Slovenia    South Africa    Spain    Sweden    Switzerland    Tunisia    Türkiye    UAE    Uganda    United Kingdom    Argentina    Brazil    Chile    Colombia    Costa Rica    Mexico    Peru    Canada    USA

Spotting issues with assignment clauses in M&A Due Diligence

Written by: Kira Systems

January 19, 2016

6 minute read

Although not nearly as complex as change of control provisions , assignment provisions may still present a challenge in due diligence projects. We hope this blog post will help you navigate the ambiguities of assignment clauses with greater ease by explaining some of the common variations. (And, if you like it, please check out our full guide on Reviewing Change of Control and Assignment Provisions in Due Diligence. )

What is an Assignment Clause?

First, the basics:

Anti-assignment clauses are common because without them, generally, contracts are freely assignable. (The exceptions are (i) contracts that are subject to statutes or public policies prohibiting their assignment, such as intellectual property contracts, or (ii) contracts where an assignment without consent would cause material and adverse consequences to non-assigning counterparties, such as employment agreements and consulting agreements.) For all other contracts, parties may want an anti-assignment clause that allows them the opportunity to review and understand the impact of an assignment (or change of control) before deciding whether to continue or terminate the relationship.

In the mergers and acquisitions context, an assignment of a contract from a target company entity to the relevant acquirer entity is needed whenever a contract has to be placed in the name of an entity other than the existing target company entity after consummation of a transaction. This is why reviewing contracts for assignment clauses is so critical.

A simple anti-assignment provision provides that a party may not assign the agreement without the consent of the other party. Assignment provisions may also provide specific exclusions or inclusions to a counterparty’s right to consent to the assignment of a contract. Below are five common occurrences in which assignment provisions may provide exclusions or inclusions.

Common Exclusions and Inclusions

Exclusion for change of control transactions.

In negotiating an anti-assignment clause, a company would typically seek the exclusion of assignments undertaken in connection with change of control transactions, including mergers and sales of all or substantially all of the assets of the company. This allows a company to undertake a strategic transaction without worry. If an anti-assignment clause doesn’t exclude change of control transactions, a counterparty might materially affect a strategic transaction through delay and/or refusal of consent. Because there are many types of change of control transactions, there is no standard language for these. An example might be:

In the event of the sale or transfer by [Party B] of all or substantially all of its assets related to this Agreement to an Affiliate or to a third party, whether by sale, merger, or change of control, [Party B] would have the right to assign any or all rights and obligations contained herein and the Agreement to such Affiliate or third party without the consent of [Party A] and the Agreement shall be binding upon such acquirer and would remain in full force and effect, at least until the expiration of the then current Term.

Exclusion for Affiliate Transactions

A typical exclusion is one that allows a target company to assign a contract to an affiliate without needing the consent of the contract counterparty. This is much like an exclusion with respect to change of control, since in affiliate transfers or assignments, the ultimate actors and responsible parties under the contract remain essentially the same even though the nominal parties may change. For example:

Either party may assign its rights under this Agreement, including its right to receive payments hereunder, to a subsidiary, affiliate or any financial institution, but in such case the assigning party shall remain liable to the other party for the assigning party’s obligations hereunder. All or any portion of the rights and obligations of [Party A] under this Agreement may be transferred by [Party A] to any of its Affiliates without the consent of [Party B].

Assignment by Operation of Law

Assignments by operation of law typically occur in the context of transfers of rights and obligations in accordance with merger statutes and can be specifically included in or excluded from assignment provisions. An inclusion could be negotiated by the parties to broaden the anti-assignment clause and to ensure that an assignment occurring by operation of law requires counterparty approval:

[Party A] agrees that it will not assign, sublet or otherwise transfer its rights hereunder, either voluntarily or by operations of law, without the prior written consent of [Party B].

while an exclusion could be negotiated by a target company to make it clear that it has the right to assign the contract even though it might otherwise have that right as a matter of law:

This Guaranty shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of [Party A]; provided, that no transfer, assignment or delegation by [Party A], other than a transfer, assignment or delegation by operation of law, without the consent of [Party B], shall release [Party A] from its liabilities hereunder.

This helps settle any ambiguity regarding assignments and their effects under mergers statutes (particularly in forward triangular mergers and forward mergers since the target company ceases to exist upon consummation of the merger).

Direct or Indirect Assignment

More ambiguity can arise regarding which actions or transactions require a counterparty’s consent when assignment clauses prohibit both direct and indirect assignments without the consent of a counterparty. Transaction parties will typically choose to err on the side of over-inclusiveness in determining which contracts will require consent when dealing with material contracts. An example clause prohibiting direct or indirect assignment might be:

Except as provided hereunder or under the Merger Agreement, such Shareholder shall not, directly or indirectly, (i) transfer (which term shall include any sale, assignment, gift, pledge, hypothecation or other disposition), or consent to or permit any such transfer of, any or all of its Subject Shares, or any interest therein.

“Transfer” of Agreement vs. “Assignment” of Agreement

In some instances, assignment provisions prohibit “transfers” of agreements in addition to, or instead of, explicitly prohibiting “assignments”. Often, the word “transfer” is not defined in the agreement, in which case the governing law of the contract will determine the meaning of the term and whether prohibition on transfers are meant to prohibit a broader or narrower range of transactions than prohibitions on assignments. Note that the current jurisprudence on the meaning of an assignment is broader and deeper than it is on the meaning of a transfer. In the rarer case where “transfer” is defined, it might look like this:

As used in this Agreement, the term “transfer” includes the Franchisee’s voluntary, involuntary, direct or indirect assignment, sale, gift or other disposition of any interest in…

The examples listed above are only of five common occurrences in which an assignment provision may provide exclusions or inclusions. As you continue with due diligence review, you may find that assignment provisions offer greater variety beyond the factors discussed in this blog post. However, you now have a basic understand of the possible variations of assignment clauses. For a more in-depth discussion of reviewing change of control and assignment provisions in due diligence, please download our full guide on Reviewing Change of Control and Assignment Provisions in Due Diligence.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more about what we do with these cookies in our privacy policy .

• Practical Law

Practical Law UK Glossary 1-107-6442  (Approx. 4 pages)

• Lending: General
• After Death
• General Contract and Boilerplate
• Security and Quasi Security

Legal briefing - Novation and assignment of contracts

Publication date: 19 May 2017

In this issue:

What is the difference between novation and assignment?

When is a novation or assignment required and which one do you use, issues to consider when deciding whether to agree to a novation or assignment, executing the novation or assignment.

Commonwealth entities encounter a variety of situations where contractual rights and obligations may need to be transferred from one legal entity to another. This can arise where a supplier is restructuring its operations or as part of a sale of a business. In these situations, there are 2 legal tools available to achieve a transfer of rights or obligations: novation and assignment. This legal briefing sets out some key considerations for Commonwealth entities when considering a novation or assignment.

While this legal briefing looks at novation and assignment of contracts generally, additional issues can arise in the context of interests in land, such as leases – these issues are beyond the scope of this legal briefing.

The following table compares the general principles that distinguish novation from assignment. 1

Table 1: Differences between novation and assignment

A novation is the mechanism by which a contract is terminated and a new contract is made between different or additional parties. 2 The new contract is generally on the same terms as the original contract. A novation has the effect of substituting one party for another party without necessarily changing the rights and obligations under the original contract. The rights and obligations under the original contract can be transferred to the new party.

A novation requires the consent of all the parties to the original contract as well as the consent of the new party. 3 It is a tripartite agreement between the original parties and the new party. Consent of all the parties to enter into the agreement is therefore crucial. 4 A novation usually takes the form of a deed.

Example of novation

The Commonwealth and B have a contract under which B provides certain services.

B is proposing to sell its business to C. C is prepared to take on B’s obligation under the contract with the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth undertakes its due diligence and agrees to the substitution of B with C. For the substitution to occur, a novation is needed. Once the novation is signed, C is responsible to the Commonwealth for the services under the contract.

The following diagram demonstrates this novation.

Diagram 1: Transfer of both rights and obligations

An assignment is the mechanism by which a party to a contract (the assignor) transfers its existing rights and benefits under that contract to a third party (the assignee). 5 Importantly, the assignor cannot transfer its burdens, obligations or liabilities to the assignee through an assignment. 6 This means that the assignor is not released from its obligations under the contract. Further, the assignee does not become a party to the original contract but can enforce their right to receive the assigned benefits.

An assignment does not require a new contract. The assignor must only record the assignment in writing, 7 sign it and provide written notice of the assignment to the other party to the contract. At law it is possible for an assignment of rights to take place without the consent of the other party to the contract. 8 This can be problematic if the other party to the contract prefers to deal with the assignor rather than the new third party. For this reason, most Commonwealth contracts contain a clause which prevents the contractor from assigning its rights under the contract, in whole or in part, without first obtaining the written consent of the Commonwealth. Sometimes the contract will also provide that the Commonwealth is not obliged to give its consent. Sometimes, this clause will refer to the consent not being ‘unreasonably withheld’.

Example of assignment

The Commonwealth and B have a contract under which B provides consultancy services to the Commonwealth. B wants to transfer its right to receive payment for the services to a third party, C. For this to occur, B can assign its rights to receive payment under the contract to C. This can be achieved through a deed of assignment between B and C. At law, the assignment can occur without any involvement of or consent from the Commonwealth. Importantly, B continues to remain a party to the contract with the Commonwealth, so B is still obliged to perform the services and B’s contractual liabilities remain unchanged. However, the third party, C, will have a legally enforceable right to receive the Commonwealth’s payment for the services that B performs.

Although C is not made a party to the original contract between the Commonwealth and B, the practical result of the assignment is that C can enforce the right to receive payment under the contract against the Commonwealth.

The following diagram demonstrates this arrangement.

Diagram 2: Transfer of rights only

Commonwealth entities are often asked to consider requests to novate or assign agreements. These requests can arise with funding agreements, contracts for goods and services and other agreements for a variety of reasons.

Where a change to the underlying contractual arrangements is requested, the Commonwealth entity will need to consider whether the proposed change is acceptable and determine whether a novation or an assignment is most appropriate. 9

Do I use a novation or an assignment?

Is the new party taking over both rights and obligations , with the existing contractor not to have an ongoing role under the contract?

• a novation will usually be required.

Is the new party taking over contractual rights only , with the existing contractor continuing to be responsible for performing obligations?

• an assignment will usually be required.

The table below outlines some common situations in which the question of novation or assignment might arise.

Table 2: Circumstances that may result in a novation or assignment

When an agency is considering whether to agree to a novation or assignment, there will be a range of matters that will need to be addressed. In some cases, it may be appropriate to terminate the existing contract and undertake a new procurement or funding process.

First, the terms of the existing contract should be considered. The contract may include provisions dealing directly with novation or assignment. Many Commonwealth contracts prohibit novation or assignment without the consent of the Commonwealth entity. This allows the Commonwealth entities to carefully select their suppliers, contractors, funding recipients and other parties that they are dealing with. It is common for these contractual provisions to specify that the Commonwealth will not unreasonably withhold approval for novation or assignment. Conversely, the contract may include a standing consent 11  by the Commonwealth to certain kinds of novation or assignment (for example, within the same corporate group). Even in this case, a formal deed of novation will usually still be required.

Second, when an agency is deciding whether to agree to a novation or assignment, it may need to consider a range of approval processes and risk management requirements that apply to this commitment of relevant money. It may be necessary to check the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (in particular, s 15, s 16 and ss 25–29), the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rules 2014 (in particular, rule 18), the accountable authority instructions and other applicable legislation that may specifically apply to the contract.

Third, although strictly not directly relevant to the novation or assignment, it is common for variations to the contract to be raised at the same time. Agencies should approach any request for a variation as part of a novation or assignment in the same way they would at any other point in the contract period.

Due diligence

The information you need will vary from case to case but might include the following.

Background entity information on the new party

• What are the management capabilities of the entity?
• Has the Commonwealth previously dealt with the entity?
• Is the body a foreign entity? If so, advice may be required as to whether it has executed a binding contract.
• Is the body a partnership or unincorporated association? If so, who will be bound by the contract following the novation?
• Is the body the trustee of a trust? If so, does the trustee have the requisite authority under the trust deed?
• Do you have information on any relevant ‘fit and proper person’ considerations?

Financial status information

• How does the financial status of the new contractor compare with that of the existing contractor?
• Should you seek a parent guarantee or other security (is the body a $2 company)?
• Do you require independent financial advice on any figures that the new party has provided?
• Can the new party meet the insurance requirements specified in the contract?

Evidence of the company’s ability to perform the contract

• What is happening to any key personnel under the contract? Are they moving to the new party?
• Will the new party have access to all relevant facilities and specialist equipment?
• Does the new party hold all relevant licences and registrations?
• Do you have evidence that the company will satisfy the conditions or requirements of the contract – for example, will it hold funding in a special account or satisfy milestone requirements or any relevant eligibility criteria for funding?

Proposed transitional arrangements

If it is decided that a novation or assignment will be agreed to then it may be necessary to put transitional arrangements in place. Matters that may need to be considered will include the following:

• What are the interim arrangements for performance of the activity (for example, arrangements between the time the novation is agreed to and the deed of novation is executed)?
• Is there a transition plan?
• What resources will be needed to manage the transition? Who will bear the cost?

Novations: matters to consider

• Is the Commonwealth satisfied that the new contractor can perform the obligations under the contract and manage risk? Is the new contractor an acceptable entity to contract with in terms of due diligence process on probity issues, financial viability and capability?
• Who will be liable for past performance or defaults before the new contractor takes over? Will the existing contractor remain liable for its performance or will the new contractor take on responsibility for any problems with the original contractor’s performance?
• Will the novation have any impact on subcontracts or other contracts – for example, contracts with other parties working on the same site?
• Are there any issues with the existing contractor’s performance that should be addressed and finalised before agreeing to the deed of novation? Make sure that you do not inadvertently make unintended amendments to the contract. For example, an acknowledgement of correspondence about a proposed novation which mentions a related delay in delivery may be taken to be acceptance of the delay.
• Are there specific issues for the particular type of contract? For example, where a grant agreement deals with assets purchased with the grant, you may need to ensure those assets are being transferred to the new contractor (unless otherwise agreed).
• Are there any existing securities or financial arrangements under the original contract that need to be replaced or updated? For example, even if both the existing and new contractor are subsidiaries of the same parent entity, an existing parent guarantee or other security may need to be amended to cover the new contractor. There may also be Personal Property Security Register entries that need to be updated.
• At what point will the new contractor take over from the existing contractor: the date the novation deed is signed or a different date?
• Are there any additional costs and who will bear these costs? Usually the party that is seeking the novation is required to meet the other party’s costs.

Assignments: matters to consider

• Is the Commonwealth satisfied that the assignor can continue to perform its obligations under the contract without receiving payment?
• Does the assignor have financial viability issues? Has the assignor sold its right to receive payment from the Commonwealth as part of a settlement of a debt with a creditor?
• What is the underlying reason for the proposed assignment?
• Is the proposed assignment detrimental to the Commonwealth?
• Does the contract between the Commonwealth and the proposed assignor propose to create a confidential relationship or an enduring relationship? Does the Commonwealth want to have any engagement with the proposed assignee?

Once an agency has decided to accept a novation or assignment, the new arrangements must be recorded. The original contract may establish the form of instrument required to execute the novation or assignment. 12 In any event, the instrument may need to reflect the following.

A deed of novation will typically:

• substitute one party for another
• include mutual release of future obligations under the original contract between the Commonwealth and the original contractor
• clearly specify responsibilities and liability of the original contractor and the new contractor for the pre-novation period – often supported by indemnities
• include representations and warranties with respect to the power of the original contractor and the new contractor to enter into the deed of novation
• include an agreement as to costs that the parties will bear in connection with the preparation, execution and completion of the novation – it is common for the other parties to pay the Commonwealth’s costs.

A deed of assignment will typically:

• unconditionally transfer the relevant benefit to the assignee, giving the assignee complete control of that benefit, including the right to take legal action to enforce it
• clearly specify whether there will be a redemption or reassignment in the future – for example, upon repayment of a loan
• confirm arrangements for the ongoing performance of the contract by the assignee
• include agreement as to costs to be borne by the parties in connection with the preparation, execution and completion of the assignment – it is common for the other parties to pay the Commonwealth’s costs.

1 See generally Olsson v Dyson (1969) 120 CLR 365, 388.

2 See Olsson v Dyson (1969) 120 CLR 365, 388.

3 See Olsson v Dyson (1969) 120 CLR 365, 388. Note that, in Leveraged Equities Ltd v Goodridge (2011) 191 FCR 71, the Full Federal Court held that it is possible for a contracting party to prospectively authorise a novation to be made by another party unilaterally. See also CSG Ltd v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 335,134.

4 See F ightvision Pty Ltd v Onisforou (1999) 47 NSWLR 473, 491–492; and Vickery v Woods (1952) 85 CLR 33, 345.

5 Norman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1963) 109 CLR 9, 26.

6 ALH Group Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue (2012) 245 CLR 338, 346 [12].

7 This is a legislative requirement in each state: see, for example, Property Law Act 1958 (Vic) s 134.

8 See Olsson v Dyson (1969) 120 CLR 365, 388.

9 In CSG Limited v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 335, [133], Sackville AJA (Bathurst CJ and Campbell JA agreeing) observed that the end result in a case of novation and a case of assignment may be similar.

10 In some cases the contract may require agency approval to some of these changes or other amendments to the contract. This is different from a novation or assignment.

11 See note 3.

12 In Leveraged Equities Ltd v Goodridge (2011) 191 FCR 71, the Court stressed the importance of drafting novation and assignment clauses in the original contract clearly to avoid ambiguity when one or more parties later seek to novate or assign.

Deputy General Counsel Commercial

Senior Lawyer

The material in this briefing is provided to AGS clients for general information only and should not be relied upon for the purpose of a particular matter. Please contact AGS before any action or decision is taken on the basis of any of the material in this briefing.

Assignment and Novation

What are assignment and novation clauses.

The two main legal tools for the transfer of the rights and/or obligations under a contract to another party are: assignment, for the transfer of benefits; and novation, for the transfer of rights/benefits and obligations. Each has unique features that must be taken into account when deciding which is the preferred option.

Assignment and novation clauses

Assignment, novation and other dealings boilerplate clauses, non-assignment clauses, withholding consent to an assignment.

The two main legal tools for the transfer of the rights and/or obligations under a contract to another party are:

• assignment, for the transfer of benefits; and
• novation, for the transfer of rights/benefits and obligations

Each has unique features that must be taken into account when deciding which is the preferred option.

Assignment clauses

A contracting party at common law has a general right to assign its rights without any consent or approval from the other party (unless by its very nature the right is personal). An assignment clause may be included in an agreement to exclude or limit this common law right. In order for the assignment of rights by one party to not be exercised unilaterally without the knowledge of the other party, it is common for contracts to include a provision that a party can only assign its rights under the contract with the consent of the other party.

After assignment, the assignee is entitled to the benefit of the contract and to bring proceedings (either alone or by joining the assignor depending in whether the assignment is legal or equitable) against the other contracting party to enforce its rights. The assignee does not become a party to the contract with the promisor. As the burden or obligations of the contract cannot be assigned, the assignor remains liable post assignment to perform any part of the contract that has not yet been performed.

Novation clauses

By executing a novation, a party can transfer both its rights/benefits and obligations. At common law, the obligations under a contract can only be novated with the consent of all original contracting parties, as well as the new contracting parties. This is because the novation extinguishes the old contract by creating a new contract.

A novation clause will usually provide that a party cannot novate a contract without the prior written consent of existing parties. Including a novation clause in an agreement is designed to prevent oral consent to a novation, or consent being inferred from a continuing party’s conduct. However, a court will look to the substance of what has occurred, and such a clause is not effective in all situations.

It is possible for a novation clause to prospectively authorise a novation to be made by another party unilaterally to a party chosen by the novating party. The courts will give effect to a novation made in this manner provided it is authorised by the proper construction of the original contract.

Option 1 – Assignment, novation and other dealings – consent required

A party must not assign or novate this [deed/agreement] or otherwise deal with the benefit of it or a right under it, or purport to do so, without the prior written consent of each other party [which consent is not to be unreasonably withheld/which consent may be withheld at the absolute discretion of the party from whom consent is sought].

Option 2 – Assignment, novation and other dealings – specifies circumstances in which consent can reasonably be withheld

(a)   [ Insert name of Party A ] may not assign or novate this [deed/agreement] or otherwise deal with the benefit of it or a right under it, or purport to do so, without the prior written consent of [ insert name of Party B ], which consent is not to be unreasonably withheld . 

(b) [ Insert name of Party A ] acknowledges that it will be reasonable for [ insert name of Party B ] to withhold its consent under this clause if:

(i)      [ Insert name of Party B ] is not satisfied with the ability of the proposed assignee to perform [ insert name of Party A ]’s obligations under this [deed/agreement];

(ii)      [ Insert name of Party B ] is not satisfied with the proposed assignee’s financial standing or reputation;

(iii)     the proposed assignee is a competitor of [ insert name of Party B ]; or

(iv)       [ Insert name of Party B ] is in dispute with the proposed assignee .

Click  here  for information on how to use this boilerplate clause.

A non-assignment clause prevents a party or parties from assigning the benefit of the contract. Non-assignment clauses are generally effective if they have been clearly drafted.

Contracts commonly provide for assignment with the consent of the other party. Such provisions usually provide that consent must not be unreasonably withheld and, where there is no such proviso, one may be implied. Accordingly, if it is intended that a party may withhold its consent to an assignment for any reason whatsoever (including on unreasonable grounds) clear contractual language should be used.

A purported assignment that contravenes such contractual restriction may constitute a breach of contract and result in an ineffective assignment.

The ‘reasonableness’ of withholding consent to an assignment is assessed by an objective standard and given a broad and common sense meaning.

The relevant factors in assessing reasonableness will differ in each case and heavily depend on the particular circumstances, including the nature and object of the specific contract and the purpose of the non-assignment clause.  Relevant factors may include any defaults in obligations under the contract and the solvency and identity of the assignee.

A party’s actions in withholding consent will generally be considered unreasonable if the grounds relied upon to support the withholding are:

• extraneous or disassociated from the subject matter of the contract;
• materially inconsistent with any provision(s) of the contract; or
• based on collateral or improper considerations.

It is advisable, where withholding consent to an assignment, to clearly set out the reasons for withholding consent in a letter to the other party.

This website uses cookies for a range of purposes to help us understand your interests and improve the website. By using our website, you acknowledge the use of essential cookies and consent to the use of non-essential cookies, as described in our Cookie Policy. To understand more about how we use cookies or to change your preference and browser settings, please see our Cookie policy

Court Confirms Receiver’s Authority to Assign a Contract

Prior to December 23, 2020, it had been unclear whether a court had the jurisdiction to grant an order assigning a contract without counterparty consent, on application by a court-appointed receiver (a “ Receiver ”). In a helpful decision - Urbancorp, 2020 ONSC 7920 (“ Urbancorp ”), Chief Justice Morawetz continued the trend in Canadian jurisprudence of interpreting the Canadian insolvency regimes harmoniously using a purposive approach to statutory interpretation. He found that a Receiver, just like a bankruptcy trustee or a debtor in proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (“ CCAA ”), has the power to apply for an order assigning contracts of the debtor and the court has jurisdiction to grant the order.

The ability to obtain court approval to assign a contract in an insolvency proceeding without the counterparty’s consent is a powerful tool that has been used in numerous bankruptcy and other insolvency proceedings in Canada. Using this tool, bankruptcy trustees and CCAA debtor companies can obtain value for a contract without the need to obtain consent from contractual counterparties to the assignment (even if such consent is required by the terms of the contract).  These orders are commonly obtained in conjunction with a sale of assets by a bankruptcy trustee or CCAA debtor to obtain enhanced value on realization.

The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“ BIA” ) (at section 84.1) and CCAA (at section 11.3) each contain a provision explicitly authorizing the court, on an application by a bankruptcy trustee or CCAA debtor (respectively), to make an order assigning the rights and obligations of the bankrupt or debtor company (respectively) under a contract.  The statutory provisions also set out the factors to be considered by the court when determining whether to grant such an order, as well as certain exceptions.

However, there is no express statutory provision (similar to section 84.1 of the BIA or 11.3 of the CCAA) that authorizes the court to grant such an order upon an application by a Receiver in receivership proceedings.  This led to uncertainty as to whether a Receiver is able to obtain value from the debtor’s contracts through a court-ordered assignment - even though it may have the same mandate to realize upon the debtor’s assets and maximize recoveries for creditors.

In Urbancorp, Chief Justice Morawetz held that section 243 of the BIA, together with section 100 of the Courts of Justice Act (“ CJA” ), are broad enough to provide the basis for a Receiver to seek, and the jurisdiction for the court to grant, an order assigning the debtor’s contracts.  Alternatively, he found it would be appropriate to resort to the inherent jurisdiction of the court as the basis for such authority.

In the Urbancorp case, a number of related entities were granted insolvency protection under the CCAA and another related entity (“ URPI ”) was subject to a receivership proceeding. After conducting a court-approved sales process, both the receiver and monitor (together, the " Court Officers ") sought approval of a transaction (the “ Transaction” ) to sell certain geothermal assets, which provided heating and air conditioning to three condominiums in downtown Toronto (the “ Geothermal Assets ”). Integral to the Geothermal Assets were 82 geothermal borehole wells located on a neighbouring property belonging to King Towns North Inc. (the “ Landlord ”). URPI (which managed the Geothermal Assets) and another entity (together, the “ Tenants ”) used the boreholes pursuant to a long-term lease with the Landlord (the “ Lease ”). The purchaser required the Lease be assigned to it as a condition of the Transaction.

At the time of entering into the Lease, the Landlord and Tenants were part of the same corporate group owned or controlled by the Saskin family. Reflecting that relationship, the Lease was for a 50-year term (with 40 years remaining) and had a nominal annual rent of $100. The Lease also contained an assignment clause providing that the Landlord’s consent to any assignment or transfer of the Lease was required and that such consent could be unreasonably withheld.

The Court Officers brought a motion to approve the Transaction and, among other things, assign the Lease to the purchaser without the Landlord's consent (the " Assignment Order "). The Landlord argued that the Court Officers had not sought its consent to the assignment of the Lease and objected to the Assignment Order.

Among other arguments, the Landlord argued that there was no statutory authority for the Receiver to seek the Assignment Order. In its submission, the Landlord referred to section 84.1 of the BIA and section 11.3 of the CCAA, which provide a court with statutory jurisdiction to make an order assigning a debtor company’s rights and obligations under an agreement. The Landlord argued that since there was no corresponding provision in Part XI of the BIA dealing with Secured Creditors and Receivers, the court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the Assignment Order.

In response, the Receiver pointed to the Supreme Court of Canada statement in Century Services [1] directing that the BIA and CCAA are to be interpreted harmoniously. While acknowledging that the BIA is silent as to when a Receiver may apply for an Assignment Order, the Receiver argued that "the only purposive interpretation which harmonizes the Canadian insolvency regimes and prevents the loss of value from the estate of the debtor is the application of section 84.1 of the BIA to receivers." [2]

In its analysis, the court highlighted recent case law supporting the use of a purposive analysis to establish the scope of a Receiver's powers and noted that the Supreme Court of Canada in 9354-9186 Quebec Inc. v Callidus Capital Corp had recently confirmed that the remedial objectives of Canadian insolvency include: providing timely, efficient, and impartial resolution of a debtor’s insolvency, preserving and maximizing the value of the debtor’s assets, ensuring fair and equitable treatment of claims against a debtor, protecting the public interest, and balancing the costs and benefits of restructuring or liquidating a debtor company. [3]

In considering those objectives, the court noted 1) the significant purchase price in the Transaction and the harm to creditors if the Transaction could not be completed because the Lease could not be assigned; and 2) that the Receiver would be able to assign the Lease if it effected a bankruptcy and then assigned the Lease as bankruptcy trustee; however, doing so would cause delay and add cost to the process.

Taking these points into consideration and applying a purposive analysis, the court found that there is sufficient jurisdiction in section 243(1) of the BIA in conjunction with section 100 of the CJA for the Receiver to seek the Assignment Order, and for the court to make such an order.  Those sections provide as follows:

BIA, section 243(1)(c) :

243   (1)  Subject to subsection (1.1), on application by a secured creditor, a court may appoint a receiver to do any or all of the following if it considers it to be just or convenient to do so:

(c)  take any other action that the court considers advisable.

CJA, section 100:

100   A court may by order vest in any person an interest in real or personal property that the court has authority to order be disposed of, encumbered or conveyed. 

According to the Chief Justice, if those sections were not broad enough to form the basis of the Receiver's request for the Assignment Order "the ability of a receiver to discharge its functions would be severely restricted to the point where the objectives of Canadian insolvency laws would be frustrated in the receivership context." [4]  

The court also went on to summarize the scope of the court's inherent jurisdiction and conclude that in this case, where there is no statutory provision prohibiting the Assignment Order, it would also be appropriate to resort to inherent jurisdiction to grant the Assignment Order if section 243(1)(c) of the BIA and section 100 of the CJA are insufficient.

Assignment was appropriate in the circumstances

Finally, the court considered whether the assignment of the Lease was appropriate in the circumstances and, in doing so, referenced the factors set out in section 84.1 of the BIA and section 11.3 of the CCAA, specifically:

• whether the monitor approved the proposed assignment (only relevant to CCAA proceedings);  
• whether the person to whom the rights and obligations are to be assigned would be able to perform the obligations; and  
• whether it would be appropriate to assign the rights and obligations to that person. [5]

Only (c) was in dispute and, in finding that the assignment was appropriate, the court dismissed the Landlord's arguments including that it would not be treated fairly and equitably without modifying the Lease to increase what it viewed to be commercially unreasonable rent. The court found that the Landlord's objections had been addressed by the Receiver, which argued:

• the sale process was approved by the court;  
• the assignment of the Lease does not preclude the Landlord from asserting a claim as to an allocation of a portion of the sale proceeds based on the value inherent in the Lease;  
• there is no prejudice to the Landlord from the assignment since no amendments are being sought; and  
• the Lease (given the 82 boreholes located on the leased land) are an integral part of the purchased assets.

In the circumstances, the court held that the Transaction should be approved and that the Assignment Order should be granted. 

Accordingly, notwithstanding the prior uncertainty on this point, this case provides clarity in Ontario that Receivers have the power to request a court-ordered assignment of contracts of the debtor without consent of the counterparty, and the court has the jurisdiction to grant such an order.

In granting this decision, the court continued the trend of using a purposive approach to interpret Canadian insolvency regimes harmoniously to accomplish their objectives.

McCarthy Tétrault LLP acted for the purchaser in the Transaction.

[1] Century Services Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) , 2010 SCC 60 at para 44. 

[2] Urbancorp, 2020 ONSC 792 at para 23 [ Urbancorp ].

[3] Ibid at paras 24-25; citing 9354-9186 Quebec Inc. v Callidus Capital Corp, 2020 SCC 10 at para 40 and Yukon (Government of) v Yukon Zinc Corporation, 2020 YKSC 16 at para 46.

[4] Ibid at para 31.

[5] Ibid at para 35.

CCAA Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act assignments

Share this article

Learn more about Heather L. Meredith

t. +1 416-601-8342 Contact by email at [email protected]

Learn more about Alexander Steele

t. +1 416-601-8370 Contact by email at [email protected]

Stay Connected

Get the latest posts from this blog