no assignment sample clause

Rethinking the “No Assignment” Provision

27 November 2023 20 November 2012 | Ken Adams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Pingback: Koncision » Quora as a Source of Misinformation

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

Assignment and Delegation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

The voice that matters.

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

164 Brompton Road Garden City, NY 11530-1432

(516) 318-6956

[email protected]

© 2024 Kenneth A. Adams

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

Non-Assignability Contract Clauses (384)

Grouped into 15 collections of similar clauses from business contracts.

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

No assignment or delegation

No assignment or delegation clause samples

14.6     No Assignment or Delegation. No party may assign any right or delegate any obligation hereunder, including by merger, consolidation, operation of law, or otherwise, without the written consent of the other parties hereto; provided, that such assignment shall not prevent or impede the Acquisition Merger from qualifying for the Intended Tax Treatment. Any purported assignment or delegation that does not comply with the immediately preceding sentence shall be void, in addition to constituting a material breach of this Agreement.

09/10/2020 (Chelsea Worldwide Inc.)

Section 5.12 No Assignment or Delegation. No Party may assign any right or delegate any obligation hereunder, including by merger, consolidation, operation of law, or otherwise, without the written consent of the all of the other Parties and any purported assignment or delegation without such consent shall be void, in addition to constituting a material breach of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding on the permitted successors and assigns of the Parties.

11/01/2019 (Lone Star Value Management LLC)

Section9. Binding Effect; No Assignment or Delegation. This Pledge Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Pledgor, the Pledgee and their respective successors and assigns, except that the Pledgor may not assign or transfer its rights hereunder without the prior written consent of the Pledgee (which consent shall not unreasonably be withheld). Each duty or obligation of the Pledgor to the Pledgee pursuant to the provisions of this Pledge Agreement shall be performed in favor of any person or entity designated by the Pledgee, and any duty or obligation of the Pledgee to the Pledgor may be performed by any other person or entity designated by the Pledgee.

06/06/2016 (Ottawa Bancorp Inc)

Section 10.16 No Assignment or Delegation. No Party may assign any right or delegate any obligation hereunder, including by merger, consolidation, operation of law, or otherwise, without the written consent of the all of the other Parties and any purported assignment or delegation without such consent shall be void, in addition to constituting a material breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding this restriction, the Buyer may assign this Agreement to an affiliate that effectuates the Roll-Up Transactions (the “Permitted Assignee”). In the event of any assignment to the Permitted Assignee, the capitalization of the Assignee shall be identical to the capitalization of the Buyer as provided for in this Agreement (only with such changes as are not adverse to the Sellers and do not diminish any rights to which the Sellers were otherwise entitled) and all other representations and warranties of the Buyer shall be true and correct as they apply to the Permitted Assignee, and the Buyer shall continue to be bound by the terms of this Agreement as a primary obligor hereunder such that should the Permitted Assignee fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, the Sellers and Sellers’ Representative shall be entitled to pursue performance against the Buyer. This Agreement shall be binding on the permitted successors and assigns of the Parties; provided, however, no such assignment will relieve any Party of their obligations under this Agreement.

11/05/2020 (HARVEST HEALTH & RECREATION INC.)

Cut contract prep time in half for free

Build document automations that allow you, your staff, and your clients to auto-populate contract templates.

“ I've found it very easy to use. It allows me to work quickly, get something straight from my head and out into the public.”

Partner, Siskind Susser PC

2500 Executive Parkway Suite 300 Lehi, Utah 84043 (866) 638-3627

Level 11, 1 Margaret Street Sydney NSW 2000 Australia +61 2 8310 4319

8th Floor South Reading Bridge House George Street Reading RG1 8LS +44 20 3129 9324

Latin America

Mexico +52 55 5985 3005

Brazil +55 21 4040 4623

• How to Successfully Switch Your DMS
• DocuSign + NetDocuments
• How Ice Miller Adopted the Cloud Completely Remote
• Case Studies
• Resource Library
• Partner Integrations
• App Directory
• Locate a Partner
• Partner Portal
• Become a Partner

© NetDocuments Software, Inc.

• Terms of Use
• Privacy policy
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy for california residents