assignment of contract us law

• 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

Contracts: assignment | Practical Law

Contracts: assignment

Practical law uk practice note 7-381-7509  (approx. 44 pages).

Choose Your Legal Category:

• Online Law Library
•   Bankruptcy Law
•   Business Law
•   Civil Law
•   Criminal Law
•   Employment Law
•   Family Law
•   Finance Law
•   Government Law
•   Immigration Law
•   Insurance Law
•   Intellectual Property Law
•   Personal Injury Law
•   Products & Services Law
•   Real Estate Law
•   Wills, Trusts & Estates Law
•   Attorney Referral Services
•   Top 10 Most Popular Articles
•   Legal Dictionary
• How It Works - Clients
• Legal Center
• About LegalMatch
• Consumer Satisfaction
• Editorial Policy
• Attorneys Market Your Law Practice Attorney Login Schedule a Demo Now Did LegalMatch Call You Recently? How It Works - Attorneys Attorney Resources Attorney Success Stories Attorney Success Story Videos Compare Legal Marketing Services Cases Heatmap View Cases
• Find a Lawyer
• Legal Topics
• Contract Law

Contract Assignment Agreement

(This may not be the same place you live)

  What Is a Contract Assignment?

In a contract assignment, one of the two parties may transfer their right to the other’s performance to a third party. This is known as “contract assignment.” Typically, all rights under a contract may be assigned. A provision in the agreement that states the contract may not be assigned usually refers to the delegation of the assignor’s (individual who assigns) obligations under that agreement, not their rights.

In modern law, the term “assignment of contract” usually means assigning both rights and duties under a contract.

What Is a Contract Assignment Agreement?

Who are the various parties involved in a contract assignment, how is a contract assignment created, when is a contract assignment prohibited, what should a contract assignment agreement contain, what are some common disputes related to assignment agreements, what is a breach of contract, what are the ways you can breach a contract, do i need a lawyer for help with a contract assignment agreement.

A contract assignment agreement may be created in cases involving a contract assignment. An assignment is where the recipient of products, services, or other rights transfers (assigns) their rights to another party. The party transferring their rights is the assignor, while the party performing the services is dubbed the obligor. The party obtaining the transferred rights is called the assignee.

Contract assignments are often utilized in cases similar to beneficiary and gift-giving situations. Yet, there is frequently a substantial business or commercial component to contract assignments (such as those projects involving commercial building and contracting).

There are two parties to the agreement in a contract, X and Y. The parties may agree to let X assign X’s rights to a third party . Once the third party enters the picture, each party has a particular name. For example, suppose X, a seller of bookmarks, contracts with Y, a purchaser of bookmarks. Y wants to have Y’s right to X’s performance (selling bookmarks every month) to another individual.

This third individual, Z, is dubbed the assignee. X is named the obligor , and Y is named the assignor since Y has assigned its right to X’s performance . X, the obligor, is bound to continue to perform its duties under the contract.

There are no “magical words” required to make an assignment. The law demands that the would-be assignor intend to wholly and immediately transfer their rights in the agreement. In addition, writing is generally not needed to make an assignment. As long as X and Y adequately comprehend what right is being assigned, an assignment is formed.

Comments that demonstrate a transfer is to take place suffice, such as “I plan to transfer my rights under this agreement,” “I plan to give my rights to Z,” or “I plan to confer an assignment on Z.” In addition, consideration, which is a bargained-for exchange needed for a contract to be proper, is not needed for the assignment.

In specific examples, an assignment of contract rights can be restricted. If the agreement includes a clause forbidding assignment of “the contract” without establishing more, the law construes this language as banning only delegation of the assignor’s duties, not their rights.

If the assignment language states “assignment of contractual rights is forbidden,” the obligor may sue for damages if the assignor tries to assign the agreement. If the contract language says that attempts to assign “will be null,” the parties can ban the assignment of rights.

Under current contract law, the expression “I assign the contract” is usually interpreted to mean that one is assigning rights and duties. What is an assignment of duties? An assignment of duties emerges where Y, dubbed the obligor or delegator, promises to perform for X, the obligee. Y then entrusts their duty to perform to Z, the delegate. Under the law, most duties can be delegated.

A contract assignment should include:

• Names of the parties involved
• Depictions of the rights or contract benefits being assigned
• When the assignment takes effect, and whether or not it lapses
• Conditions regarding legal action if a breach or violation of contract should ensue

Most jurisdictions don’t demand a contract assignment to be in writing. Of course, it’s always best to put the agreement in writing to create a record of the transaction if there are any future problems.

Some typical legal problems involving contract assignments include:

• Failure to transfer the rights to the assignee
• Refusal to cooperate with the contract assignment terms
• Use of deception, misrepresentation, or force when dealing with assignment agreement documents
• Blunders or mistakes concerning definitions of the assignment subject

Conflicts oftentimes require legal action in a court of law to settle the legal problems. This can result in a monetary damages award to cover losses caused by a breach of contract. Alternatively, some courts may enforce other remedies such as cancellation or rewriting of the agreement.

A breach of contract may arise when a party to a good agreement has failed to fulfill their side of the deal.

For example, the terms of a contract guide the parties in what they must do and how they should do it to maintain their promise. If a party does not do what the agreement instructs them to do, then the non-breaching party will be entitled to take legal action and file a lawsuit against them in court.

A breach of contract can arise as either a partial or a complete breach. A court will also consider whether the breach was substantial or only a minor one. This will allow the court to decide what type of damages the breaching party should have to expend.

There are three major ways for which a party can be held liable for breach of contract. This includes when:

• There is an anticipatory breach: Often referred to as anticipatory repudiation, this kind of breach happens when the breaching party tells the non-breaching party that they will not be fulfilling the terms of their contract. Once the other party is informed, they can sue for breach of contract.
• A party has committed a minor breach: A minor breach of contract happens when a party fails to perform a small contract detail. The total contract has not been violated and can still be substantially performed in this circumstance. This also comes up when there is a technical mistake with the agreement (e.g., a false date, price, or typo within the terms of the agreement).
• If there is a material or fundamental breach: These are the most standard sorts of breaches cited as the basis of a breach of contract action. When the breach is so substantial, it essentially cancels the contract because it renders performance by either party impossible.

Some other ways that a contract can be breached include when the contract is dishonest, if the contract was formed illegally or is unconscionable, and when there is a mistake of fact present in the agreement terms. The parties may also include conditions unique to their respective agreement, which specify when a party’s actions can be deemed a breach.

Further, state regulations and the type of contract (e.g., lease agreement, sales contract, government contract, etc.) may indicate other ways a contract can be breached.

Contract agreements often require much attention to detail and foresight for anticipating future events. It’s in your best interests to hire a contract lawyer if you need help with any contract matters. Your lawyer can help you with your records and represent you if you ever need to file a claim in court for damages.

Save Time and Money - Speak With a Lawyer Right Away

• Buy one 30-minute consultation call or subscribe for unlimited calls
• Subscription includes access to unlimited consultation calls at a reduced price
• Receive quick expert feedback or review your DIY legal documents
• Have peace of mind without a long wait or industry standard retainer
• Get the right guidance - Schedule a call with a lawyer today!

Need a Contract Lawyer in your Area?

• Connecticut
• Massachusetts
• Mississippi
• New Hampshire
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• West Virginia

Ty McDuffey

LegalMatch Legal Writer

Updating Author

Ty began working at LegalMatch in November 2021. Ty holds a Professional Writing Degree from Missouri State University with a minor in Economics. Ty received his Juris Doctorate from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law in May of 2021. Before joining LegalMatch, Ty worked as a law clerk and freelance writer. Ty is a native of Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri, and currently resides in Kansas City. Read More

Jose Rivera, J.D.

Managing Editor

Original Author

Related Articles

• When Can a Party Assign Contractual Rights to Another Party?
• What Are Contractual Rights?
• When a Party to a Contract Makes a Unilateral Mistake
• Unilateral Mistake Examples
• Retainer Fee Contracts
• What is a Non-disclosure Agreement
• Breach of a Confidentiality Agreement
• Non-Disclosure Agreement Violation
• Lawyers for Contracts: Contract Dispute Attorney Near Me
• Contract Mistake Lawyers
• Contract Error Lawsuits
• Breach of Real Estate Contract
• Fraud in Contract Law
• Contract Coercion
• Legally Binding Contracts
• Contract Violation Lawyers
• Binding Agreement
• Duty to Read a Contract
• What are Employment Contracts?
• Resolving Contract Conflicts
• State Employment Contracts
• Land Contract Agreements
• Installment Contract
• What is a Land Contract?
• What is a Service Contract?
• Service-Level Agreement Disputes
• Contract Obligations
• Legal Contracts
• Indemnity Clause Law
• Indemnification

Discover the Trustworthy LegalMatch Advantage

• No fee to present your case
• Choose from lawyers in your area
• A 100% confidential service

How does LegalMatch work?

Law Library Disclaimer

16 people have successfully posted their cases

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Building Your Business
• Operations & Success

What Is an Assignment of Contract?

Assignment of Contract Explained

Hero Images / Getty Images

Assignment of contract allows one person to assign, or transfer, their rights, obligations, or property to another. An assignment of contract clause is often included in contracts to give either party the opportunity to transfer their part of the contract to someone else in the future. Many assignment clauses require that both parties agree to the assignment.

Learn more about assignment of contract and how it works.

What Is Assignment of Contract?

Assignment of contract means the contract and the property, rights, or obligations within it can be assigned to another party. An assignment of contract clause can typically be found in a business contract. This type of clause is common in contracts with suppliers or vendors and in intellectual property (patent, trademark , and copyright) agreements.

How Does Assignment of Contract Work?

An assignment may be made to anyone, but it is typically made to a subsidiary or a successor. A subsidiary is a business owned by another business, while a successor is the business that follows a sale, acquisition, or merger.

Let’s suppose Ken owns a lawn mowing service and he has a contract with a real estate firm to mow at each of their offices every week in the summer. The contract includes an assignment clause, so when Ken goes out of business, he assigns the contract to his sister-in-law Karrie, who also owns a lawn mowing service.

Before you try to assign something in a contract, check the contract to make sure it's allowed, and notify the other party in the contract.

Assignment usually is included in a specific clause in a contract. It typically includes transfer of both accountability and responsibility to another party, but liability usually remains with the assignor (the person doing the assigning) unless there is language to the contrary.

What Does Assignment of Contract Cover?

Generally, just about anything of value in a contract can be assigned, unless there is a specific law or public policy disallowing the assignment.

Rights and obligations of specific people can’t be assigned because special skills and abilities can’t be transferred. This is called specific performance.   For example, Billy Joel wouldn't be able to transfer or assign a contract to perform at Madison Square Garden to someone else—they wouldn't have his special abilities.

Assignments won’t stand up in court if the assignment significantly changes the terms of the contract. For example, if Karrie’s business is tree trimming, not lawn mowing, the contract can’t be assigned to her.

Assigning Intellectual Property

Intellectual property (such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks) has value, and these assets are often assigned. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) says patents are personal property and that patent rights can be assigned. Trademarks, too, can be assigned. The assignment must be registered with the USPTO's Electronic Trademark Assignment System (ETAS) .  

The U.S. Copyright Office doesn't keep a database of copyright assignments, but they will record the document if you follow their procedure.

Alternatives to Assignment of Contract

There are other types of transfers that may be functional alternatives to assignment.

Licensing is an agreement whereby one party leases the rights to use a piece of property (for example, intellectual property) from another. For instance, a business that owns a patent may license another company to make products using that patent.  

Delegation permits someone else to act on your behalf. For example, Ken’s lawn service might delegate Karrie to do mowing for him without assigning the entire contract to her. Ken would still receive the payment and control the work.

Do I Need an Assignment of Contract?

Assignment of contract can be a useful clause to include in a business agreement. The most common cases of assignment of contract in a business situation are:

• Assignment of a trademark, copyright, or patent
• Assignments to a successor company in the case of the sale of the business
• Assignment in a contract with a supplier or customer
• Assignment in an employment contract or work for hire agreement

Before you sign a contract, look to see if there is an assignment clause, and get the advice of an attorney if you want to assign something in a contract.

Key Takeaways

• Assignment of contract is the ability to transfer rights, property, or obligations to another.
• Assignment of contract is a clause often found in business contracts.
• A party may assign a contract to another party if the contract permits it and no law forbids it.

Legal Information Institute. " Assignment ." Accessed Jan. 2, 2021.

Legal Information Institute. " Specific Performance ." Accessed Jan. 2, 2021.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. " 301 Ownership/Assignability of Patents and Applications [R-10.2019] ." Accessed Jan. 2, 2021.

Licensing International. " What is Licensing ." Accessed Jan. 2, 2021.

Contract Assignment Agreement

Jump to section, what is a contract assignment agreement.

A contract assignment agreement is a document that transfers the contractual rights and duties of one party to another. The other party involved in the contract must agree to the terms of the transfer as well as they will now be in a contractual agreement with a different party.

Contract of assignment agreements must not violate any other laws or statutes in order to be enforced. The original contract must also allow assignments, or at least not explicitly prohibit them. Contract of assignment agreements cannot alter what is expected from the original contract.

Contract Assignment Agreement Sample

Reference : Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database, EX-10.45 61 dex1045.htm ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT , Viewed October 27, 2022, View Source on SEC .

Who Helps With Contract Assignment Agreements?

Lawyers with backgrounds working on contract assignment agreements work with clients to help. Do you need help with a contract assignment agreement?

Post a project  in ContractsCounsel's marketplace to get free bids from lawyers to draft, review, or negotiate contract assignment agreements. All lawyers are vetted by our team and peer reviewed by our customers for you to explore before hiring.

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

Meet some of our Contract Assignment Agreement Lawyers

www.parachinilaw.com I represent a diverse mix in a vast array of specialties, including litigation, contracts, compliance, business and financial strategies, and emerging industries. Credit for this foundation of strength goes to those who taught me. Skilled professors and professionals fostered my powerful educational and professional background. Prior to law school, I earned dual Bachelor’s degrees in Business Administration & Accounting from Peru State College. I received a Master of Business Administration degree from Chadron State College. My ambitions did not stop there. While working full time as a Senior Accountant for the University of Missouri, Columbia, I achieved the lifelong goal of becoming a licensed Certified Public Accountant (CPA). Mizzo provided excellent opportunities and amazing experiences. Managing over $50M in government and private research funding was a gift. As a high ranking professional in the Department of Research, I was given priceless insight into the greatest scientific, journalistic, medical, and legal minds in the world. My passion for successful growth did not, and has not stopped. I graduated summa cum laude (top 3%) with a Doctorate in Law, emphasizing in urban, land use and environmental/toxic tort law from the University of Missouri, Kansas City. This success lead to invaluable experiences of serving as Hon. Brian C. Wimes' judicial clerk for the U.S. District Court for the W. D. of Missouri, as a staff editor/writer for UMKC Law Review, and as a litigation and transactional attorney with Lathrop GPM (fka Lathrop & Gage). My professional and personal network is expansive, with established relationships throughout the U.S. and overseas. Although I engage in legal practice all over the country, I maintain law licenses in Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. Federally, I hold licenses in the W.D. and E.D. of Missouri and the District of Nebraska. To offer extra value, efficiency, and options, I maintain a CPA license and am obtaining a real-estate brokerage license.

I am a graduate from Wittenberg University and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. I have been admitted to the Indiana bar since 2013. I have collaborated on several writing projects for the Indiana State Bar.

During my tenure as VP & Division General Counsel of PepsiCo Inc. in Chicago, I built upon my diverse career overseeing legal matters for both the domestic and international businesses of PepsiCo and The Quaker Oats Co. My extensive practice areas included M&A, contracts, competition, NDAs, regulatory compliance, consumer product & protection, environmental, patents, and advertising regulations. Throughout my professional journey, I navigated legal complexities associated with an eclectic range of products, spanning juices, sports drinks, cereals, snacks, needlepoint kits, canned goods, eyeglasses, men's suits, car seats and toys. For further information, see my LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/karen-hunter-a700179

I am a business lawyer with 30+ years of experience, with a specialization in the life sciences industry. I have been general counsel at 5 different companies - both large and growing, as well as small and emerging. I have built legal teams and have extensive experience with Boards of Directors.

Greene Litigation Group, PLLC., specializes in Personal Injury, Criminal Defense, Contract Dispute, Wills & POAs, Irreconcilable Differences Divorce, Business Formation, Contract Drafting, and Landlord Tenant Law

After a career in aviation, I went to Albany Law School graduating in 2003. I opened my own practice in 2005 following a 2-year term with a large, Albany-based law firm. I focus my practice on helping individuals and small business with various matters including defense representation, family law/matrimonial matters, estate planning, probate and estate administration, bankruptcy, business formation and general litigation.

Litigation attorney with a broad range of experience (19 years) in civil and commercial litigation.

Find the best lawyer for your project

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

How It Works

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

Business lawyers by top cities

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

Contract Assignment Agreement lawyers by city

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

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

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

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

Want to speak to someone?

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

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

Assignment and Novation: Spot the Difference 12 November 2020

The english technology and construction court has found that the assignment of a sub-contract from a main contractor to an employer upon termination of an epc contract will, in the absence of express intention to the contrary, transfer both accrued and future contractual benefits..

In doing so, Mrs Justice O’Farrell has emphasised established principles on assignment and novation, and the clear conceptual distinction between them. While this decision affirms existing authority, it also highlights the inherent risks for construction contractors in step-in assignment arrangements.

"This decision shows the court’s desire to give effect to clear contractual provisions, particularly in complex construction contracts, even where doing so puts a party in a difficult position."

This preliminary issues judgment in the matter of Energy Works (Hull) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd & Others¹ , is the latest in a long series of decisions surrounding the Energy Works plant, a fluidised bed gasification energy-from-waste power plant in Hull². The defendant, MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd (“MW”), was engaged as the main contractor by the claimant and employer, Energy Works (Hull) Ltd (“EWHL”), under an EPC contract entered into in November 2015. Through a sub-contract, MW engaged Outotec (USA) Inc (“Outotec”) to supply key elements for the construction of the plant.

By March 2019, issues had arisen with the project. EWHL terminated the main contract for contractor default and, pursuant to a term in the EPC contract, asked MW to assign to it MW’s sub-contract with Outotec. The sub-contract permitted assignment, but MW and EWHL were unable to agree a deed of assignment. Ultimately, MW wrote to EWHL and Outotec, notifying them both that it was assigning the sub-contract to EWHL. EWHL subsequently brought £133m proceedings against MW, seeking compensation for the cost of defects and delay in completion of the works. The defendant disputed the grounds of the termination, denied EWHL’s claims, and sought to pass on any liability to Outotec through an additional claim under the sub-contract. Outotec disputed MW’s entitlement to bring the additional claim on the grounds that MW no longer had any rights under the sub-contract, because those rights had been assigned to EWHL.

The parties accepted that a valid transfer in respect of the sub-contract had taken place. However, MW maintained that the assignment only transferred future rights under the sub-contract and that all accrued rights – which would include the right to sue Outotec for any failure to perform in accordance with the sub-contract occurring prior to the assignment – remained with MW. In the alternative, MW argued that the transfer had been intended as a novation such that all rights and liabilities had been transferred. As a secondary point, MW also claimed eligibility for a contribution from Outotec under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 for their alleged partial liability³.

An assignment is a transfer of a right from one party to another. Usually this is the transfer by one party of its rights and remedies, under a contract with a counterparty, to a third party. However, importantly, the assignor remains liable for any obligations it owes under the contract. As an example, Party A can assign to Party C its right to receive goods under a contract with Party B, but it will remain liable to pay Party B for those goods. Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1926 requires a valid statutory assignment to be absolute, in writing, and on notice to the contractual counterparty.

Key contacts

Rebecca Williams

Partner London

Mark McAllister-Jones

Counsel London

"In the absence of any clear contrary intention, reference to assignment of the contract by parties is understood to mean assignment of the benefit, that is, accrued and future rights."

In this case, the precise scope of the transferred rights and the purported assignment of contractual obligations were in issue. Mrs Justice O’Farrell looked to the House of Lords’ decision in Linden Gardens⁴ to set out three relevant principles on assignment:

• Subject to any express contractual restrictions, a party to a contract can assign the benefit of a contract, but not the burden, without the consent of the other party to the contract;
• In the absence of any clear contrary intention, reference to assignment of the contract by parties is understood to mean assignment of the benefit, that is, accrued and future rights; and
• It is possible to assign only future rights under a contract (i.e. so that the assignor retains any rights which have already accrued at the date of the assignment), but clear words are needed to give effect to such an intention.

Hence, in relation to MW’s first argument, it is theoretically possible to separate future and accrued rights for assignment, but this can only be achieved through “careful and intricate drafting, spelling out the parties’ intentions”. The judge held that, since such wording was absent here, MW had transferred all its rights, both accrued and future, to EWHL, including its right to sue Outotec.

Whereas assignment only transfers a party’s rights under a contract, novation transfers both a party’s rights and its obligations . Strictly speaking, the original contract is extinguished and a new one formed between the incoming party and the remaining party to the original contract. This new contract has the same terms as the original, unless expressly agreed otherwise by the parties.

Another key difference from assignment is that novation requires the consent of all parties involved, i.e. the transferring party, the counterparty, and the incoming party. With assignment, the transferring party is only required to notify its counterparty of the assignment. Consent to a novation can be given when the original contract is first entered into. However, when giving consent to a future novation, the parties must be clear what the terms of the new contract will be.

"Mrs Justice O’Farrell stressed that “it is a matter for the parties to determine the basis on which they allocate risk within the contractual matrix.”"

A novation need not be in writing. However, the desire to show that all parties have given the required consent, the use of deeds of novation to avoid questions of consideration, and the use of novation to transfer ‘key’ contracts, particularly in asset purchase transactions, means that they often do take written form. A properly drafted novation agreement will usually make clear whether the outgoing party remains responsible for liabilities accrued prior to the transfer, or whether these become the incoming party’s problem.

As with any contractual agreement, the words used by the parties are key. Mrs Justice O’Farrell found that the use of the words “assign the sub-contract” were a strong indication that in this case the transfer was intended to be an assignment, and not a novation.

This decision reaffirms the established principles of assignment and novation and the distinction between them. It also shows the court’s desire to give effect to clear contractual provisions, particularly in complex construction contracts, even where doing so puts a party in a difficult position. Here, it was found that MW had transferred away its right to pursue Outotec for damages under the sub-contract, but MW remained liable to EWHL under the EPC contract. As a result, EWHL had the right to pursue either or both of MW and Outotec for losses arising from defects in the Outotec equipment, but where it chose to pursue only MW, MW had no contractual means of recovering from Outotec any sums it had to pay to EWHL. Mrs Justice O’Farrell stressed that “it is a matter for the parties to determine the basis on which they allocate risk within the contractual matrix.” A contractor in MW’s position can still seek from a sub-contractor a contribution in respect of its liability to the employer under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (as the judge confirmed MW was entitled to do in this case). However, the wording of the Act is very specific, and it may not always be possible to pass down a contractual chain all, or any, of a party’s liability.

Commercially, contractors often assume some risk of liability to the employer without the prospect of recovery from a sub-contractor, such as where the sub-contractor becomes insolvent, or where the sub-contract for some reason cannot be negotiated and agreed on back-to-back terms with the EPC contract. However, contractors need to consider carefully the ramifications of provisions allowing the transfer of sub-contracts to parties further up a contractual chain and take steps to ensure such provisions reflect any agreement as to the allocation of risk on a project.

This article was authored by London Dispute Resolution Co-Head and Partner Rebecca Williams , Senior Associate Mark McAllister-Jones and Gerard Rhodes , a trainee solicitor in the London office.

[1] [2020] EWHC 2537 (TCC)

[2] See, for example, the decisions in Premier Engineering (Lincoln) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2484, reported in our article here , Engie Fabricom (UK) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 1626 (TCC) and C Spencer Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 331, reported in our article here .

[3] The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 allows that “ any person liable in respect of any damage suffered by another person may recover contribution from any other person liable in respect of the same damage whether jointly with him or otherwise .”

[4] Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85

DOWNLOAD PDF

• Power Plant
• Transfer of rights
• Contribution

Related insights

Wfw advises guinea as us$15bn simandou african mega-project closes, creating a transparent legal framework: an overview of greek law 5123/2024 for pledge execution and registration, wfw continues asia energy expansion with key hire from sullivan & cromwell, follow us on.

• X (Twitter)

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Disney wants a wrongful death lawsuit thrown out because the plaintiff had Disney+

Rachel Treisman

The husband of a New York doctor who died shortly after dining at a Disney Springs restaurant last year has accused Walt Disney Parks and Resorts of negligence in a lawsuit. Disney has responded with a motion to compel arbitration rather than litigate in court. John Raoux/AP hide caption

After a doctor suffered a fatal allergic reaction at a Disney World restaurant, Disney is trying to get her widower's wrongful death lawsuit tossed by pointing to the fine print of a Disney+ trial he signed up for years earlier.

Jeffrey Piccolo is representing the estate of his late wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, a doctor at New York's NYU Langone hospital who died of an allergic reaction while visiting the Florida resort in October.

The couple, along with Piccolo's mother, went to dinner on the night of Oct. 5 at Raglan Road Irish Pub, a restaurant located within a shopping and dining complex called Disney Springs.

In Florida, there's détente in the battle between Disney and Gov. Ron DeSantis

Tangsuan was "highly allergic" to dairy and nuts, and they chose that particular restaurant in part because of its promises about accommodating patrons with food allergies, according to the lawsuit filed in a Florida circuit court.

The complaint details the family's repeated conversations with their waiter about Tangsuan's allergies. The family allegedly raised the issue upfront, inquired about the safety of specific menu items, had the server confirm with the chef that they could be made allergen-free and asked for confirmation "several more times" after that.

"When the waiter returned with [Tangsuan's] food, some of the items did not have allergen free flags in them and [Tangsuan] and [Piccolo] once again questioned the waiter who, once again, guaranteed the food being delivered to [Tangsuan] was allergen free," the lawsuit reads.

The three of them ate and then went their separate ways: Piccolo brought the leftovers to their room, while his wife and mother headed for the stores. After about 45 minutes, Tangsuan "began having severe difficulty breathing and collapsed to the floor."

FDA warns top U.S. bakery not to claim foods contain allergens when they don't

She self-administered an epi-pen, and an observer called 911. The Piccolos, who had tried calling her multiple times, were eventually told she had been rushed to the hospital. They went to meet her and, after a period of waiting, were told that she had died.

"The medical examiner's investigation determined that [Tangsuan's] cause of death was as a result of anaphylaxis due to elevated levels of dairy and nut in her system," according to the lawsuit.

Piccolo filed suit in February against Raglan Road Irish Pub and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc. (WDPR), accusing both companies of negligence for preparing Tangsuan's food improperly and for failing to train their employees to guarantee food was made allergen-free as requested.

He is seeking more than $50,000 in damages and trial by jury "on all issues so triable."

Disney says the case should be handled out of court because Piccolo created a streaming account

Neither Disney Parks nor its lawyer has responded to NPR's request for comment. They have, however, fought back in legal filings.

In late May, Disney's lawyers filed a motion asking the circuit court to order Piccolo to arbitrate the case — with them and a neutral third party in private, as opposed to publicly in court — and to pause the legal proceedings in the meantime.

Arbitration is generally considered a more efficient and cost-effective method of resolving disputes than litigation, and Disney said explicitly in court documents that the "main benefit of arbitration is avoiding heavy litigation costs."

The reason it says Piccolo must be compelled to arbitrate? A clause in the terms and conditions he signed off on when he created a Disney+ account for a monthlong trial in 2019.

Family files lawsuit in case of teen who died after eating spicy chip

Those terms of use — which users must acknowledge to create an account — state that "any dispute between You and Us, Except for Small Claims, is subject to a class action waiver and must be resolved by individual binding arbitration."

Disney says Piccolo agreed to similar language again when purchasing park tickets online in September 2023. Whether he actually read the fine print at any point, it adds, is "immaterial."

"Piccolo ignores that he previously created a Disney account and agreed to arbitrate 'all disputes' against 'The Walt Disney Company or its affiliates' arising 'in contract, tort, warranty, statute, regulation, or other legal or equitable basis,'" the motion reads, arguing the language is broad enough to cover Piccolo's claims.

Piccolo's lawyers say Disney's claims are "outrageously unreasonable"

In early August, Piccolo's lawyers filed a response slamming Disney's rationale as "preposterous," bordering "on the surreal" and "fatally flawed for numerous independent reasons."

"There is simply no reading of the Disney+ Subscriber Agreement which would support the notion that Mr. Piccolo agreed to arbitrate claims arising from injuries sustained by his wife at a restaurant located on premises owned by a Disney theme park or resort which ultimately led to her death," they wrote in the 123-page filing.

They confirmed that he did create a Disney+ account on his PlayStation in 2019, but he believes he canceled the subscription during the trial because he hasn't found any charges associated with it after that point.

Piccolo's lawyers accused the company of trying to deprive Tangsuan's estate of its right to a jury trial.

The streaming wars bring a new discounted bundle: Disney+, Hulu and Max

"The notion that terms agreed to by a consumer when creating a Disney+ free trial account would forever bar that consumer's right to a jury trial in any dispute with any Disney affiliate or subsidiary, is so outrageously unreasonable and unfair as to shock the judicial conscience, and this Court should not enforce such an agreement," they wrote.

Piccolo's lawyers also took issue with the process itself, saying Disney didn't raise its alleged right to arbitration early enough in the proceedings.

They further note that Piccolo didn't bring the lawsuit as an individual, but on behalf of Tangsuan's estate, which did not sign off on any such terms. There was no such estate at the time, since Tangsuan was still alive.

FDA approves a drug to treat severe food allergies, including milk, eggs and nuts

"[Disney] does not explain how it is possible for Mr. Piccolo individually to bind an Estate that did not exist, which is not surprising as there is not a single authority in Florida that would support such an inane argument," they said.

The arbitration provision, they added, could present a problem for more than just their own client.

"In effect, WDPR is explicitly seeking to bar its 150 million Disney+ subscribers from ever prosecuting a wrongful death case against it in front of a jury even if the case facts have nothing to with Disney+," they wrote.

Both sides will get to make their case in front of a judge before long. The court has scheduled a hearing on Disney's motion for Oct. 2.

Editor’s note: Disney+ is among NPR’s financial sponsors.

• food allergies
• The Walt Disney Company

41 U.S. Code § 6305 - Prohibition on transfer of contract and certain allowable assignments

In subsection (a), the words “The party to whom the Federal Government gives a contract or order” are substituted for “the party to whom such contract or order is given” for clarity. The words “A purported transfer in violation of this subsection” are substituted for “any such transfer” because an actual transfer is precluded by this provision.

In subsection (b)(1), the words “amounts due from the Federal Government” are substituted for “moneys due or to become due from the United States or from any agency or department thereof” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “may be assigned” are added to provide explicitly for authority that is necessarily implied by the source provision.

In subsection (b)(3), the words “in the case of any contract entered into after October 9, 1940 ” are omitted as obsolete.

In subsection (b)(5), the words “participating in such financing” are omitted as unnecessary.

In subsection (b)(8), the words “is not liable to make any refund to the Federal Government” are substituted for “no [liability] . . . shall create or impose any liability on the part of the assignee to make restitution, refund, or repayment to the United States of any amount heretofore since July 1, 1950 , or hereafter received under the assignment” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “an assignor’s liability to the Federal Government” are substituted for “liability of any nature of the assignor to the United States or any department or agency thereof ” for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (b)(9)(A), the words “except any such contract under which full payment has been made” are omitted as unnecessary because subsection (b)(8) precludes refund where full payment has already been made. The words “payments made to an assignee under the contract” are substituted for “payments to be made to the assignee of any moneys due or to become due under such contract” to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (b)(9)(B), the words “When a ‘no reduction or setoff ’ provision as described in subparagraph (A) is included in a contract” are substituted for “If a provision described in subsection (e) of this section or a provision to the same general effect has been at any time heretofore or is hereafter included or inserted in any such contract”, the words “payments to the assignee” are substituted for “payments to be made thereafter to an assignee of any moneys due or to become due”, and the words “an assignor’s liability” are substituted for “any liability of any nature of the assignor to the United States or any department or agency thereof ”, for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.

In subsection (b)(9)(C), the text of 40:15(g), which provided that nothing in 40:15 affected rights and obligations accrued before subsection (g) was added by the Act of May 15, 1951 (ch. 75, 65 Stat. 41 ), is omitted as obsolete.

Memorandum of President of the United States, Oct. 3, 1995 , 60 F.R. 52289 , provided:

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

Section 2451 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 , Public Law 103–355 ([amending former] 41 U.S.C. 15 [see 41 U.S.C. 6305 ]) (“Act”), provides, in part, that “[a]ny contract of the Department of Defense , the General Services Administration , the Department of Energy or any other department or agency of the United States designated by the President, except [contracts where] . . . full payment has been made, may, upon a determination of need by the President, provide or be amended without consideration to provide that payments to be made to the assignee of any moneys due or to become due under [the] contract shall not be subject to reduction or set-off.”

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3 , United States Code, I hereby designate all other departments and agencies of the United States as subject to this provision. Furthermore, I hereby delegate to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, the Administrator of General Services, and the heads of all other departments and agencies, the authority under section 2451 of the Act to make determinations of need for their respective agency’s contracts, subject to such further guidance as issued by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

The authority delegated by this memorandum may be further delegated within the departments and agencies.

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

California Bar Signs $8 Million Kaplan Licensing Exam Contract

By Mike Vilensky

The California State Bar’s board signed an $8.25 million, five-year contract with Kaplan for the company to help develop a state-specific licensing exam to replace the national standardized test, the state bar said Tuesday.

The agreement authorizes Kaplan to create multiple-choice, essays, and performance test questions for the California Bar Exam, and develop study guides for faculty and students. The agreement will help aid the transition to remote and test center-based exam administration, the state bar said.

With the state bar’s admissions fund facing insolvency by 2026, the plan to replace the Multistate Bar Exam is expected to save up ...

Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:

Learn about bloomberg law.

AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.

Already a subscriber?

Log in to keep reading or access research tools.

Assignment vs Novation: Everything You Need to Know

Assignment vs. novation: What's the difference? An assignment agreement transfers one party's rights and obligations under a contract to another party. 4 min read updated on September 19, 2022

Assignment vs. novation: What's the difference? An assignment agreement transfers one party's rights and obligations under a contract to another party. The party transferring their rights and duties is the assignor; the party receiving them is the assignee. Novation is a mechanism where one party transfers all its obligations and rights under a contract to a third party, with the consent of the original counterparty.

The transfer of a benefit or interest from one party to another is referred to as an assignment. While the benefits can be transferred, the obligation or burden behind the contract cannot be. A contract assignment 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. 

The assignor continues to carry the burden and can be held liable by the assignee for failing to fulfill their duties under the contract. Purchasing an indemnity clause from the assignee may help protect the assignor from a future liability. Unlike notation, assignment contracts do not annul the initial agreement and do not establish a new agreement. The original or initial contract continues to be enforced. 

Assignment contracts generally do not require the authorization from all parties in the agreement. Based on the terms, the assignor will most likely only need to notify the nonassigning party.

In regards to a contract being assignable, if an agreement seems silent or unclear, courts have decided that the contract is typically assignable. However, this does not apply to personal service contracts where consent is mandatory. The Supreme Court of Canada , or SCC, has determined that a personal service contract must be created for the original parties based on the special characteristics, skills, or confidences that are uniquely displayed between them. Many times, the courts need to intervene to determine whether an agreement is indeed a personal service contract.

Overall, assignment is more convenient for the assignor than novation. The assignor is not required to ask for approval from a third party in order to assign their interest in an agreement to the assignee. The assignor should be aware of the potential liability risk if the assignee doesn't perform their duties as stated in the assigned contract.

Novation has the potential to limit future liabilities to an assignor, but it also is usually more burdensome for the parties involved. Additionally, it's not always achievable if a third party refuses to give consent.

It's essential for the two parties in an agreement to appraise their relationship before transitioning to novation. An assignment is preferential for parties that would like to continue performing their obligations, but also transition some of their rights to another party.

A novation occurs when a party would like to transfer both the benefits and the burden within a contract to another party. Similar to assignment, the benefits are transferred, but unlike assignment, the burden is also transferred. When a novation is completed, the original contract is deleted and is replaced with a new one. In this new contract, a third party is now responsible for the obligations and rights. Generally, novation does not cancel any past obligations or rights under the initial contract, although it is possible to novate these as well.

Novation needs to be approved by both parties of the original contract and the new joining third party. Some amount of consideration must also be provided in the new contract in order for it to be novated, unless the novation is cited in a deed that is signed by all parties to the contract. In this situation, consideration is referring to something of value that is being gained through the contract.

Novation occurs when the purchaser to the original agreement is attempting to replace the seller of an original contract. Once novated, the original seller is released from any obligation under the initial contract. The SCC has established a three-point test to implement novation. The asserting party must prove:

• The purchaser accepts complete liability
• The creditor to the original contract accepts the purchaser as the official debtor, and not simply as a guarantor or agent of the seller
• The creditor to the original contract accepts the new contract as the replacement for the old one

Also, the SSC insisted that if a new agreement doesn't exist, the court would not find novation unless the precedence was unusually compelling.

If you need help determining if assignment vs. novation is best for you, 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

• Contract Transfer
• Novation Agreement
• What is Novation of Contract
• Novation of Contract
• Contract Novation Letter
• Deed of Novation
• Contract Novation
• Loan Novation Agreement
• Assignment of Rights Example
• Contract Novation Agreement

Disney wrongful death lawsuit over allergy highlights danger of fine print

The Walt Disney Co. is trying to toss out a widower’s wrongful death lawsuit , arguing he agreed to settle any disputes with the entertainment giant and any of its affiliates out of court when he signed up for a free trial of its streaming service Disney+.

In February, Jeffrey Piccolo sued Walt Disney Parks and Resorts over the death of his wife at a restaurant at Walt Disney World.

His wife, Kanokporn Tangsuan, who was allergic to nuts and dairy, dined at Raglan Road Irish Pub, in the resort's Disney Springs shopping, dining and entertainment complex in Florida. Tangsuan, a New York doctor, experienced a severe allergic reaction and died.

In a legal filing, lawyers for Walt Disney Parks and Resorts said the matter should be referred to an outside arbitrator because when Piccolo signed up for a Disney+ account in 2019 and when he bought tickets to EPCOT on the Disney website in 2023, he agreed to arbitrate all disputes against the company.

Piccolo’s lawyers countered that he never signed an agreement with Walt Disney Parks. Even if he had, they said the terms and conditions would not extend to his wife. 

“We are deeply saddened by the family’s loss and understand their grief. Given that this restaurant is neither owned nor operated by Disney, we are merely defending ourselves against the plaintiff’s attorney’s attempt to include us in their lawsuit against the restaurant," Disney said in a statement.

The Raglan Road Irish Pub, located at the resort, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In court papers, Disney described its relationship with the restaurant as a landlord.

Are consumers unwittingly signing away their legal rights when they sign up for a streaming service? Quite possibly.

“Sadly, Disney could very well have a viable argument here,” University of Buffalo law professor Christine Bartholomew said. “The Supreme Court has, time and again, treated these arbitration provisions as binding. It doesn't matter if it's in fine, teeny tiny print in the terms of conditions.”

Every day, we blindly click “I agree” when we sign up for a service or buy tickets. But what’s in that fine print can cause harm.

“As it currently stands, a forced arbitration provision in the terms and conditions of the sale or service can bind parties,” Bartholomew said. “Even if the consumer didn't read the terms. Even if the consumer didn't understand the consequences.”

Including mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts is a common legal tactic to avoid class action lawsuits and large damages awards. 

Companies say they make sure arbitration is fair for consumers and argue it is also faster and less expensive. But critics say the secretive process puts consumers at a massive disadvantage and very few people pursue a legal case through the arbitration system.

The Disney+ subscriber agreement says it applies to all disputes involving Walt Disney Co. or its affiliates, with two exceptions.

“Almost no one reads these contracts but the courts still enforce them,” University of Maryland law professor Jeff Sovern said.

Consumers don’t sign away all of their rights in these contracts, but they sign away a lot, including the constitutional right to a jury trial and their day in court, Sovern said. 

“Congress has limited the use of arbitration clauses in some transactions but not enough, in my view,” he said.

According to the wrongful death lawsuit, Tangsuan and Piccolo chose the restaurant because it advertised its commitment to accommodating people with allergies. 

When they told the waiter Tangsuan had severe allergies to dairy and nuts, she was “unequivocally assured” the food would be allergen-free, according to the lawsuit.

When the orders of broccoli and corn fritter, scallops and onion rings arrived, they did not have allergen-free flags so Piccolo and Tangsuan inquired again if the food was allergen-free and were told the dishes were safe for Tangsuan to eat.

About 45 minutes later while shopping alone at a nearby store, Tangsuan had a severe allergic reaction. She administered an EpiPen but began having difficulty breathing and collapsed. She was taken to the hospital where she later died.

The medical examiner determined her death was the result of anaphylaxis “due to elevated levels of dairy and nuts in her system."

Disney restaurants have strict protocols for food allergies and are known for their attention to allergens.

Lawmakers have proposed fixes to give consumers more leverage. Some states have tried to address the issue. A rule proposed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to allow consumers to file class-action lawsuits over disputes with banks, credit card companies and other financial service firms was killed in 2017 . 

At the time, Wells Fargo faced a huge scandal over millions of unauthorized consumer accounts. Richard Cordray, at the time the CFPB's director, said the outcome preserved “a two-tiered justice system.”

David Vladeck, a Georgetown law professor and the former director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission, says he doubts Disney’s terms of service apply in this case, but mandatory arbitration remains “a huge thorn for consumers.” 

“The CFPB came really close to getting a rule that would have protected consumers but they got cut off at the knees in Congress,” he said. 

The agency has a congressional mandate to address mandatory arbitration, Vladeck said, and “people like me have been pushing the CFPB to promulgate a new rule to protect consumers.”

“ Most of the companies in the U.S. require mandatory arbitration and it allows them to, by and large, cut off much relief,” he said. “Companies love it but individuals who are harmed by these corporations, they really don’t have any access to any forum that would give them relief and that’s a real problem.”

How can consumers dodge this quandary? According to Bartholomew, their options are limited.

“The Supreme Court's view is if you don't like it, don't sign it,” she said. 

But, she says, that’s hardly realistic advice. So she encourages consumers to lobby lawmakers for change. 

“To me, if consumers want to fix this, they need to vote for politicians who are willing to change the power dynamic between corporations and consumers,” Bartholomew said.

Advertisement

Supported by

News Analysis

How the Google Antitrust Ruling May Influence Tech Competition

Nearly a quarter-century after Microsoft lost a similar case, a judge’s decision that Google abused a monopoly in internet search is likely to have major ripple effects.

• Share full article

By Steve Lohr

In 2000, a ruling in a U.S. antitrust case against Microsoft helped set the rules of competition for the digital giant of its day.

At the time, a federal judge said Microsoft had abused the monopoly power of its Windows operating system and ordered that the company be split up. A breakup was reversed on appeal, but key legal findings were upheld. And Microsoft was prohibited from forcing restrictive contracts on its industry partners and ordered to open some of its technology to outsiders — preventing the company from single-handedly controlling the internet.

More than two decades later, a ruling in a Google antitrust case similarly promises to shape new rules for the tech industry. Judge Amit P. Mehta of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found on Monday that Google had violated antitrust laws by stifling rivals in internet search to protect its monopoly.

Google’s loss could have major ripple effects for competition today. U.S. regulators have also accused Apple, Amazon and Meta of violating antitrust laws by advantaging their own products on the platforms they run and acquiring smaller rivals. The Google ruling, and potential remedies to be decided by Judge Mehta, are likely to weigh heavily on those cases , including a second lawsuit against Google over ad technology, which is scheduled to go to trial next month.

Judge Mehta’s ruling is “a predictor of what other courts might do,” said Rebecca Haw Allensworth, a Vanderbilt University law professor who studies antitrust. “You can also expect other judges to read this opinion and be influenced by it.”

The influence of the Microsoft antitrust case was, in fact, apparent in the Google decision. In Judge Mehta’s 277-page judgment, Microsoft appeared on 104 pages, both as an aspiring rival to Google and as a legal precedent.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .