Hubbry Logo
Assignment (law)Assignment (law)Main
Open search
Assignment (law)
Community hub
Assignment (law)
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Assignment (law)
Assignment (law)
Assignment (law)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Assignment[a] is a legal term used in the context of the laws of contract and of property. In both instances, assignment is the process whereby a person, the assignor, transfers rights or benefits to another, the assignee.[1] An assignment may not transfer a duty, burden or detriment without the express agreement of the assignee. The right or benefit being assigned may be a gift (such as a waiver) or it may be paid for with a contractual consideration such as money.

The rights may be vested or contingent,[2] and may include an equitable interest.[3] Mortgages and loans are relatively straightforward and amenable to assignment. An assignor may assign rights, such as a mortgage note issued by a third party borrower, and this would require the latter to make repayments to the assignee.

A related concept of assignment is novation wherein, by agreement with all parties, one contracting party is replaced by a new party. While novation requires the consent of all parties, assignment needs no consent from other non-assigning parties. However, in the case of assignment, the consent of the non-assigning party may be required by a contractual provision.[4]

Procedure

[edit]

An assignment does not necessarily have to be made in writing; however, the assignment agreement must show an intent to transfer rights. The effect of a valid assignment is to extinguish privity (in other words, contractual relationship, including right to sue) between the assignor and the third-party obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee.[1]

Liabilities and duties

[edit]

Unless the contractual agreement states otherwise, the assignee typically does not receive more rights than the assignor, and the assignor may remain liable to the original counterparty for the performance of the contract. The assignor often delegates duties in addition to rights to the assignee, but the assignor may remain ultimately responsible.

However, in the United States, there are various laws which limit the liability of the assignee, often to facilitate credit, as assignees are typically lenders.[5] Notable examples include a provision in the Truth in Lending Act[6] and provisions in the Consumer Leasing Act and the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act.[5] The Assignment of Claims Act of 1940 [7] was passed to provide legal protection for financial institutions funding wartime defense contracts.[8]

In other cases, the contract may be a negotiable instrument in which the person receiving the instrument may become a holder in due course, which is similar to an assignee except that issues, such as lack of performance, by the assignor may not be a valid defense for the obligor.[9] As a response, the United States Federal Trade Commission promulgated Rule 433, formally known as the "Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses", which "effectively abolished the [holder in due course] doctrine in consumer credit transactions".[9] In 2012, the commission reaffirmed the regulation.[10]

Assignment of contract rights

[edit]
Contract law
Formation
Defences
Interpretation
Dispute resolution
Rights of third parties
Breach of contract
Remedies
Quasi-contractual obligations
Duties of parties
Related areas of law
By jurisdiction
Other law areas
Notes

After the assignment of contractual rights, the assignee will receive all benefits that had accrued to the assignor. For example, if A contracts to sell his car for $100 to B, A may assign the benefits (the right to be paid $100) to C.[b] In this case, Party C is not a third party beneficiary, because the contract was not made for C's benefit. Assignment takes place after the contract was formed; they may not precede them.[citation needed]

When assignment will be permitted

[edit]

The common law favors the freedom of assignment, so an assignment will generally be permitted unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the contract. Where assignment is thus permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract. An assignment cannot have any effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it reduce the possibility of the other party receiving full performance of the same quality. Certain kinds of performance, therefore, cannot be assigned, because they create a unique relationship between the parties to the contract. For example, the assignment of a legal malpractice claim is void since an assignee would be a stranger to the attorney-client relationship, who was owed no duty by the attorney and would imperil the sanctity of the highly confidential and fiduciary relationship existing between attorney and client.

Torts are not assignable as public policy, and various statutes may prohibit assignment in certain instances.[11] In addition, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts lists prohibitions in §317(2)(a) based upon the effect to the non-assigning party (obligor),[11] with similar prohibitions in the Uniform Commercial Code §2-210.[12] For example, UCC §2-210 states the following:[13]

Unless otherwise agreed all rights of either seller or buyer can be assigned except where the assignment would materially change the duty of the other party, or increase materially the burden or risk imposed on him by his contract, or impair materially his chance of obtaining return performance. A right to damages for breach of the whole contract or a right arising out of the assignor's due performance of his entire obligation can be assigned despite agreementotherwise [sic].

Equipment Lease Agreements typically contain language prohibiting the lessee from assigning the lease to a third party. For example, "You have no right to sell, transfer, assign, sublease, or encumber the equipment or this agreement" protects the Lessor’s collateral and credit underwriting guidelines in the event the lessee ever wants to transfer the lease to another party. However, it is possible to assign the lease, but the new party (assignee) will be subject to the lessor’s credit evaluation process and approval. Even if the assignee is approved, the existing lessee’s (assignor’s) personal guarantee(s), if any, might not be released unless the assignee’s credit stature is extremely strong.

Legislation preventing assignment

[edit]

The US Congress first restricted the assignment of claims against the United States government in 1846, when it passed "An Act in Relation to the Payment of Claims".[14][15] Title 41 of the United States Code § 6305 now provides the federal prohibition on transfers of government contracts, stating that the governmental entity which originally issued a contract must agree to any transfer or it is automatically invalid by law.[16]

Requirements for an effective assignment

[edit]

For assignment to be effective, it must occur in the present: a promise to make a future assignment has no legal effect.[17] No specific language is required to make such an assignment, but the assignor must make some clear statement of intent to assign clearly identified contractual rights to the assignee. A promise to assign in the future has no legal effect. Although this prevents a party from assigning the benefits of a contract that has not yet been made, a court of equity may enforce such an assignment where an established economic relationship between the assignor and the assignee raised an expectation that the assignee would indeed form the appropriate contract in the future.

A contract may contain a non-assignment clause, which prohibits the assignment of specific rights and some various rights, or of the entire contract, to another. However, such a clause does not necessarily destroy the power of either party to make an assignment. Instead, it merely gives the other party the ability to sue for breach of contract if such an assignment is made. However, an assignment of a contract containing such a clause will be ineffective if the assignee knows of the non-assignment clause, or if the non-assignment clause specifies that "all assignments are void".

Two other techniques to prevent the assignment of contracts are rescission clauses or clauses creating a condition subsequent. The former would give the other party to the contract the power to rescind the contract if an assignment is made; the latter would rescind the contract automatically in such circumstances.

Requirement of a writing

[edit]

There are certain situations in which the assignment must be in writing.

  1. Assignment of wages; additionally, statutes may prohibit this assignment[11]
  2. Assignment of any interest in real property
  3. Assignment of choses in action worth over $500

Delegation

[edit]

A parallel concept to assignment is delegation, which occurs when one party transfers his duties or liabilities under a contract to another. A delegation and an assignment can be accomplished at the same time, although a non-assignment clause may also bar delegation.

Remedies

[edit]

Legal remedies may be available if the non-assigning party's rights are affected by the assignment.

Revocability

[edit]

Assignments made for consideration are irrevocable, meaning that the assignor permanently gives up the legal right to take back the assignment once it has been made. Donative assignments, on the other hand, are generally revocable, either by the assignor giving notice to the assignee, taking performance directly from the obligor, or making a subsequent assignment of the same right to another. There are some exceptions to the revocability of a donative assignment:

  1. The assignment can not be revoked if the obligor has already performed
  2. The assignment can not be revoked if the assignee has received a token chose (chose being derived from the French word for "thing", as in a chose of action) - a physical object that signifies a right to collect, such as a stock certificate or the passbook to a savings account.
  3. The assignment can not be revoked if the assignor has set forth in writing the assignment of a simple chose - a contract right embodied in any form of token.
  4. Estoppel can prevent the revocation of a donative assignment if the assignee changed their position in reliance on the assignment.

Breach and defenses

[edit]

A cause of action for breach on the part of the obligor lies with the assignee, who will hold the exclusive right to commence a cause of action for any failure to perform or defective performance. At this stage, because the assignee "stands in the shoes" of the assignor, the obligor can raise any defense to the contract that the obligor could have raised against the assignor. Furthermore, the obligor can raise against the assignee counterclaims and setoffs that the obligor had against the assignor. For example, suppose that A makes a contract to paint B's house in exchange for $500. A then assigns the right to receive the $500 to C, to pay off a debt owed to C. However, A does such a careless job painting the house that B has to pay another painter $400 to correct A's work. If C sues B to collect the debt, B can raise his counterclaim for the expenses caused by the poor paint job, and can reduce the amount owed to C by that $400, leaving only $100 to be collected.

When the assignor makes the assignment, he makes with it an implied warranty that the right to assign was not subject to defenses. If the contract had a provision that made the assignment ineffective, the assignee could sue the assignor for breach of this implied warranty. Similarly, the assignee could also sue under this theory if the assignor wrongfully revoked the assignment.

Successive assignments

[edit]
See also: interpleader

Occasionally, an unscrupulous assignor will assign exactly the same rights to multiple parties (usually for some consideration). In that case, the rights of the assignee depend on the revocability of the assignment, and on the timing of the assignments relative to certain other actions.

In a quirk left over from the common law, if the assignment was donative, the last assignee is the true owner of the rights. However, if the assignment was for consideration, the first assignee to actually collect against the assigned contract is the true owner of the rights. Under the modern American rule, now followed in most U.S. jurisdictions, the first assignor with equity (i.e. the first to have paid for the assignment) will have the strongest claim, while remaining assignees may have other remedies. In some countries, the rights of the respective assignees are determined by an old common law rule known as "the rule in Dearle v Hall".

  1. Earlier donative assignees for whom the assignment was revocable (because it had not been made irrevocable by any of the means listed above) have no cause of action whatsoever.
  2. Earlier donative assignees for whom the assignment was made irrevocable can bring an action for the tort of conversion, because the assignment was technically their property when it was given to a later assignee.
  3. Later assignees for consideration have a cause of action for breaches of the implied warranty discussed above.

If an assignee of a chose in action fails to provide a notice to the debtor, then a subsequent assignee with good faith who does provide notice acquires a superior right against the former assignee.[18]

Special rules for assignment of certain rights

[edit]

Property rights

[edit]
Property law
Part of the common law series
Types
Acquisition
Estates in land
Conveyancing
Future use control
Nonpossessory interest
Related topics
Other common law areas
Higher category: Law and Common law
See also: Rule in Dumpor's Case and Privity of estate

Real property rights can be assigned just as any other contractual right. However, special duties and liabilities attach to transfers of the right to possess property. With an assignment, the assignor transfers the complete remainder of the interest to the assignee. The assignor must not retain any sort of reversionary interest in the right to possess. The assignee's interest must abut the interest of the next person to have the right to possession. If any time or interest is reserved by a tenant assignor then the act is not an assignment, but is instead a sublease.

The liability of the assignee depends upon the contract formed when the assignment takes place. However, in general, the assignee has privity of estate with a lessor. With privity of estate comes the duty on the part of the assignee to perform certain obligations under covenant, e.g. pay rent. Similarly, the lessor retains the obligations to perform on covenants to maintain or repair the land.

If the assignor agrees to continue paying rent to the lessor and subsequently defaults, the lessor can sue both the assignor under the original contract signed with the lessor as well as the assignee because by taking possession of the property interest, the assignee has obliged himself to perform duties under covenant such as the payment of rent.

Unlike a Novation where consent of both the lessor and lessee is required for the third party to assume all obligations and liabilities of the original lessee, an assignment does not always need the consent of all parties. If the contract terms state specifically that the lessor's consent is not needed to assign the contract, then the lessee can assign the contract to whomever the lessee wants to.

Absent language to the contrary, a tenant may assign their rights to an assignee without the landlord's consent. In the majority of jurisdictions, when there is a clause that the landlord may withhold consent to an assignment, the general rule is that the landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably unless there is a provision that states specifically that the Landlord may withhold consent at Landlord's sole discretion.

Partnership rights

[edit]

A person can also assign their rights to receive the benefits owed to a partner in a partnership. However, the assignee can not thereby gain any of the assignor's rights with respect to the operation of the partnership. The assignee may not vote on partnership matters, inspect the partnership books, or take possession of partnership property; rather, the assignee can only be given the right is to collect distributions of income, unless the remaining partners consent to the assignment of a new general partner with operational, management, and financial interests. If the partnership is dissolved, the assignee can also claim the assignor's share of any distribution accompanying the dissolution.

Intellectual property rights

[edit]
See also: Transfer (patent)

Ownership of intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, and trademarks, may be assigned, but special conditions attach to the assignment of patents and trademarks. In the United States, assignment of a patent is governed by statute, 35 U.S.C. § 261. Patent rights are assignable by an "instrument in writing". Title in a patent can also be transferred as a result of other financial transactions, such as a merger or a takeover, or as a result of operation of law, such as in an inheritance process, or in a bankruptcy. An assignment of a patent can be recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Although such recording is not required, if an assignment is not recorded at the USPTO within three months or prior to a subsequent assignment, the assignment will be void against a subsequent assignee without notice of the earlier, unrecorded assignment.

With respect to a trademark, the owner of the mark may not transfer ownership of the mark without transferring the goodwill associated with the mark.

Companies sometimes request from employees that they assign all intellectual property they create while under the employment of the company. This is typically done within an Employment Agreement, but is sometimes done through a specific agreement called Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement (PIIA).

Personal injury torts

[edit]

The standard rule is that personal injury tort causes of action are not assignable as a matter of public policy.[11][19] These should be distinguished from final settlements or judgments resulting from lawsuits brought on such causes of action, which may be assignable.

[edit]

In the majority of jurisdictions, assignments involving fraud or legal malpractice causes of action are void as against public policy.[20]

Non-compete agreements

[edit]

Case law has held that an employee's covenant not to compete is assignable where one business is transferred to another.[21]

Assignment in bankruptcy law

[edit]
Main article: General assignment

A general assignment or assignment is a concept in bankruptcy law in which an insolvent entity's assets are assigned to someone as an alternative to a bankruptcy.

Equitable assignment

[edit]

An equitable assignment is an assignment, or transfer of rights, in equity.

General principles

[edit]

There are numerous requirements that exist for an equitable assignment of property, outside the 'standard' clear and unconditional intention to assign.[22] These requirements are fundamental characteristics of a statutory assignment: Absolute assignment (an unconditional transfer: conditions precedent or part of a debt are not absolute) and the assignment must be made in writing and signed by the assignor, and in particular, this applies to real property.[23]

Assigning future property in equity cannot be gratuitous. The assignor must receive consideration for the agreement, otherwise the assignment will be ineffective.[2] However, an absolute assignment does not require consideration to be given. Secondly, between the period of agreement between assignor and assignee and acquisition by the assignor, the assignees rights are not contractual, but rather a proprietary right to the property.[24] This means the assignee has an interest in this future property, in the same manner any owner has over property.

In equity, these principles operate to protect both the assignor and the assignee. In Norman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation,[2] a taxpayer attempted to assign by deed, to his wife certain moneys which he was eventually going to receive. This included dividends and interest due on loans. The court held the interest and the dividends were expectancies or possibilities which could not be assigned without consideration. The court's worry was that assignments without consideration might be used as instruments of fraud, to avoid creditors and tax collection.

Mere expectancies

[edit]

Courts will not enforce a contract to assign an expectancy unless there is a valuable consideration. For example, under a settlement of property the respondent "the son" would have been entitled to an equal portion of properties along with his other siblings which was gained in a settlement by his mother. This portion was only his when allocated to him at his mothers discretion. Prior to this allocation being made, the respondent allotted his benefit to trustees for a voluntary settlement. He was assigning or purporting to assign something which he might become entitled to in the future, not a contingent interest. The judgment held it ineffective and elaborated on previous points to state the respondent cannot be compelled to allow the trustees to retain the appointed sum.[25]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Assignment (law)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In law, an assignment is the transfer of , , or other benefits held by one , the assignor, to another , the assignee, thereby allowing the assignee to enforce those directly against the obligor. This process is fundamental in both and , enabling the efficient circulation of legal interests while generally preserving the original obligations of the parties involved. Unlike a , which involves the transfer of duties rather than , or a , which substitutes a new with the of all involved and releases the original obligor, an assignment typically does not alter the underlying duty owed by the obligor. Assignments are governed by common law principles, as codified in instruments like the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, which define an effective assignment as a manifestation of the assignor's intent to transfer the right, extinguishing the assignor's claim to performance and vesting it in the assignee. Under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-210, applicable to sales of goods, all rights are assignable unless the assignment would materially change the other party's duty or risk, or unless the contract explicitly prohibits it. For instance, in contract law, rights to payment or performance—such as receivables or benefits under an agreement—are commonly assigned, provided the right exists at the time of transfer and notice is given to the obligor to prevent multiple payments. However, assignments of future rights under an existing contract are valid, while rights arising from entirely future contracts are treated as mere promises to assign unless consideration supports them. Key limitations on assignability protect the obligor's interests and . Rights involving , such as contracts requiring unique skills, or those that would impose a substantially greater burden, , or delay on the obligor cannot be assigned. Contractual clauses prohibiting assignment are enforceable if explicit, though general anti-assignment language may be construed narrowly to favor transferability, reflecting a legal toward alienability of . Statutory restrictions also apply, such as prohibitions on assigning certain benefits or licenses without consent. In contexts, like leases, an assignment conveys the entire remaining term to the assignee, who assumes privity of estate with the landlord, distinct from a sublease that retains the original tenant's reversionary interest. The effects of an assignment bind the obligor to perform for the assignee upon , with the assignee acquiring no greater rights than the assignor held and subject to the same defenses. The assignor often warrants the right's validity implicitly or expressly, and multiple assignments prioritize the first in time or upon , depending on . This framework facilitates commercial transactions, such as factoring debts or securitizing assets, while balancing contractual stability.

Fundamentals of Assignment

Definition and Scope

In , an assignment is the transfer of an existing right or interest, typically a chose in action, from one party known as the assignor to another known as the assignee, which establishes between the assignee and the obligor while terminating privity between the assignor and the obligor. A chose in action refers to an intangible right, such as a or contractual benefit, that can only be enforced through legal proceedings rather than physical possession. The essential elements of a valid assignment include the assignor's clear intent to transfer the right, sufficient identification of the specific right being assigned, and, for certain types like legal assignments, to the obligor to perfect the transfer and prevent discharge of the by payment to the assignor; however, is not invariably required for the assignment to be effective as between assignor and assignee. Assignment applies broadly to the transfer of contractual benefits, monetary debts, and select interests, enabling the assignee to step into the assignor's position and enforce the right directly. It does not extend to personal services contracts or duties requiring unique skills, as these are non-assignable without the obligor's to preserve the personal relationship inherent in the obligation. Representative examples include the assignment of , where the assignee gains the authority to pursue payment from the , or the assignment of proceeds, allowing the assignee to claim benefits directly from the insurer. The term "assignment" traces its etymological and conceptual roots to Roman law's in jure cessio, a procedural mechanism for transferring through a formal, simulated before a .

Historical Development

The origins of assignment in law trace back to Roman jurisprudence, where in iure cessio—a formal conveyance before a magistrate—facilitated the transfer of real rights and, in later developments, the assignment of actions or claims, though obligations typically required novation rather than direct cession. This mechanism, as described by Gaius in his Institutes, emphasized ceremonial transfer for incorporeal rights like usufruct but excluded straightforward assignment of debts without creating a new obligation, influencing subsequent civil law traditions on the alienability of rights. In medieval English common law, the concept evolved through choses in action—intangible personal rights enforceable by legal action, such as debts or contract claims—which were recognized as early as the 14th century but faced severe restrictions on assignment due to prohibitions against maintenance, the improper funding or stirring up of litigation by third parties. Common law courts viewed assignments as potential vehicles for champerty and maintenance, limiting transfers to specific contexts like executory interests or judgments, as seen in yearbook reports from the reign of Edward III where partial recognition occurred for debt assignments but full alienability was denied to preserve personal ties in obligations. By the 17th century, equity intervened to expand possibilities; in Earl of Shrewsbury's Case (1610), the Court of Chancery upheld an equitable assignment of a chose in action, enforcing the transfer despite common law barriers and establishing equity's role in remedying the rigidity of legal assignments. The 19th century brought codification and fusion. The UK's Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 merged the separate jurisdictions of and equity into a unified , with section 25(6) enabling statutory assignments of choses in action by written notice, thereby integrating equitable principles into legal procedure and standardizing transfers. In the United States, the Uniform Commercial Code's Article 9, first promulgated in 1952 and adopted by states thereafter (with major revisions in 1972 and 1998, effective 2001), standardized secured transactions including assignments of accounts and chattel paper, prioritizing filing over notice for commercial efficacy. Australian law, drawing from English equity, affirmed these developments in Norman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1963), where the recognized equitable assignments of future income streams as valid if expressed as an immediate transfer of an existing chose, distinguishing them from mere expectant interests. A pivotal evolution concerned notice requirements for priority among assignees. Initially optional in equity, notice became essential in the 18th century; Dearle v Hall (1828) ruled that, for competing equitable assignments of the same chose, priority follows the order in which is given to the obligor, protecting the first to notify against subsequent claims and shifting focus from temporal sequence to practical perfection. This "rule in Dearle v Hall" resolved earlier uncertainties from cases like Ryall v Rowles (1750), where unnotified assignments risked defeat, and remains a for determining assignee rights in jurisdictions.

Procedures and Requirements

General Assignment Process

The general assignment process in contract involves a structured sequence of steps to transfer contractual from the assignor to the assignee, ensuring clarity and enforceability. First, the assignor identifies the specific assignable right, such as the right to receive payments or benefits under an existing contract, confirming it is not personal in nature or restricted by the original agreement. Second, the assignor and assignee reach an agreement manifesting the intent to transfer those , which can be oral or written and does not necessarily require , though it strengthens the assignment against . Third, the assignment is executed through a or clear communication that details the being transferred, often in writing to avoid disputes, though formal writing requirements vary by . Following execution, the assignor delivers or communicates the assignment to the assignee, completing the transfer and allowing the assignee to enforce the . To protect the assignee against third-party claims, the assignor provides notice to the obligor—the originally obligated to perform under the —informing them of the transfer and directing future performance to the assignee. This notice is not required for the assignment's validity between assignor and assignee but is essential to bind the obligor and prevent discharge of their by performance to the original assignor. In this process, the assignor relinquishes their rights to the identified benefits, stepping back from enforcement while potentially retaining certain warranties about the right's validity. The assignee steps into the assignor's shoes, acquiring all associated rights and any defenses available against the obligor, but assuming no new duties unless separately delegated. Post-notice, the obligor becomes bound to perform directly to the assignee, ensuring the transferred rights are honored without altering the obligor's underlying obligations. The assignment becomes effective upon the assignor's clear to transfer, typically at the moment of agreement or execution, allowing immediate of benefits to the assignee. However, without to the obligor, any performance or made to the assignor discharges the obligor's , underscoring the importance of timely notification to secure the assignee's position. A common pitfall arises from failing to specify the full scope of being transferred, which can result in only a partial assignment, leaving residual with the assignor and inviting disputes over interpretation. For instance, ambiguous language in the assignment document may lead to litigation, as seen in cases where incomplete descriptions limited the assignee's recovery. An illustrative example is the assignment of future rents from a commercial , where a (assignor) identifies the right to rental payments accruing under the lease and agrees to transfer it to a (assignee) as security for a . The process culminates with written notice to the tenant (obligor), directing them to remit future rents directly to the assignee upon default, thereby perfecting the transfer against third parties.

Formalities for Effective Assignment

An effective assignment in law requires adherence to specific formalities to ensure its validity and enforceability, distinguishing between absolute and conditional transfers. An absolute assignment transfers the full right or interest without reservations, vesting complete ownership in the assignee immediately upon compliance with formal requirements. In contrast, a conditional assignment only takes effect upon the occurrence of a specified event or condition, such as the satisfaction of a future obligation, and does not qualify as a legal assignment under statutes like the UK's (LPA 1925). For instance, an absolute assignment might fully convey all rights under a debt instrument, while a conditional one could depend on the assignor's triggering the transfer. The writing requirement is a cornerstone formality in many jurisdictions, mandated by for legal assignments to provide clear evidence and prevent disputes. In the , section 136(1) of the LPA 1925 stipulates that a legal assignment of choses in action—such as —must be absolute, in writing under the hand of the assignor, and expressed in writing to be notified to the . This ensures the assignee can enforce the right directly against the obligor without joining the assignor in proceedings. In the United States, while assignments of generally do not require writing absent specific statutes, the (UCC) Article 9 governs assignments of , emphasizing authenticated notification under §9-406 to bind the account , though the assignment itself may be oral or written. The further applies to assignments involving that cannot be performed within one year, land interests, or guarantees, requiring a signed writing to avoid unenforceability. Deed execution serves as a heightened formality, particularly for assignments involving or where is absent, to confer legal title and overcome evidentiary hurdles. In jurisdictions, assignments of interests must typically be executed as a , involving signing, witnessing, and sometimes sealing, to transfer legal ownership effectively. For non- assignments lacking , a may be necessary under the LPA 1925 to achieve legal status, as simple written contracts require valuable for enforceability. This formality provides solemnity and protects against claims of duress or misunderstanding. Consideration plays a variable role depending on whether the assignment seeks legal or equitable effect, though it is not invariably required. For legal assignments under statutes like LPA 1925 s.136, consideration strengthens enforceability by treating the assignment as a contractual transfer, but its absence does not preclude validity if executed by . In equity, assignments require no , relying instead on the assignor's intent to transfer and to the obligor, allowing informal transfers to bind parties through fairness principles. Electronic signatures enhance modern compliance with these formalities, validated under U.S. for most assignments. The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN Act) of 2000 provides that electronic records and signatures have the same legal effect as their paper counterparts for transactions in interstate commerce, including contract assignments, provided the signer manifests clear intent. This applies broadly to writings under the or UCC notifications, facilitating digital assignments without diminishing enforceability. Failure to meet these formalities often results in the assignment being treated as equitable rather than legal, limiting the assignee's remedies. Oral assignments, for example, cannot satisfy statutory writing requirements and thus operate only in equity, requiring the assignor to join any action against the obligor and exposing the transfer to equitable defenses like . Such incomplete assignments may still bind the parties inter se but lack the robust protections of legal assignments, potentially leading to disputes over priority or validity in third-party claims.

Distinction from Delegation and Novation

In contract , assignment and serve distinct purposes in the transfer of interests under a contract. Assignment involves the transfer of or benefits from one (the assignor) to another (the assignee), allowing the assignee to enforce those against the original obligor. In contrast, refers to the transfer of performance duties or obligations to a third party (the delegatee), where the original (the delegator) remains primarily liable for ensuring the duties are fulfilled unless otherwise agreed. This key difference ensures that assignment focuses on benefiting the transferee through enforceable claims, while addresses who performs the contractual responsibilities without altering the underlying liability structure. Under the (UCC) § 2-210, of performance is generally permissible unless the other party has a substantial interest in the original promisor's personal involvement, such as in contracts requiring unique skill or taste; however, the delegator is not relieved of any to perform or liability for breach. For example, in a supply , a buyer might its delivery obligations to a , but the original buyer would still be accountable if the fails to deliver, unlike an assignment where the buyer could transfer its right to receive to another party without retaining enforcement obligations. This distinction prevents confusion in practice, as assignment does not inherently include , and parties must expressly indicate any intent to transfer duties. Assignment also differs fundamentally from , which involves the substitution of a new party into the with the of all original parties, thereby extinguishing the original agreement and creating a new one on substantially the same terms. Unlike assignment, which can often be unilateral and transfers only without requiring the obligor's (subject to certain restrictions), requires mutual agreement among all parties to release the outgoing party from all and to bind the incoming party fully. For instance, in loan refinancing, a borrower and original lender might agree to a to substitute a new lender, transferring both the right to receive payments and the obligation to provide the funds, effectively replacing the entire . The legal implications of these distinctions are significant for liability and . In , the original party retains liability unless a occurs, whereas assignment preserves the obligor's defenses against the original , allowing the obligor to raise claims like setoff or breach as if dealing with the assignor. , by contrast, fully releases the original party from future obligations, providing a clean break that assignment or alone cannot achieve. These boundaries help parties structure transfers appropriately, avoiding unintended continuations of liability or incomplete substitutions in contractual relationships.

Contract Rights Assignment

Conditions for Permissibility

In contract law, the default rule permits the assignment of rights unless otherwise prohibited by the terms of the contract, statute, or public policy. According to the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 317(2), all rights under a contract are assignable except where the assignment would materially change the other party's duty, where it is forbidden by statute, or where it involves a personal right. This principle supports the free transferability of contractual benefits to facilitate commercial transactions. Assignments are permissible when the rights do not require the assignor's personal skill, trust, or confidence, as such elements tie the performance to the original party's unique attributes. For instance, rights to payment, such as , are generally assignable because they involve monetary obligations that can be transferred without altering the obligor's duties. In contrast, rights involving , like an artist's performance or a professional's advisory based on trust, are not assignable to preserve the obligor's expectation of dealing with the specific . Contractual anti-assignment clauses are enforceable if they explicitly prohibit the transfer of , but courts interpret them narrowly and will not uphold them if the assignment causes no material change to the obligor's position. For example, clauses barring assignment of "the contract" typically only prevent of duties, not the assignment of payment . In certain contexts, such as proceedings, the U.S. Code overrides anti-assignment provisions to allow the assumption and assignment of executory contracts, subject to exceptions for or concerns. Statutory prohibitions on assignment may also apply in specific regulated areas, such as certain government contracts. Public policy strongly favors assignments that promote commerce and liquidity, particularly for monetary rights, as seen in factoring agreements where businesses assign to obtain immediate capital. Courts encourage such transfers to support unless they undermine the contract's core purpose. A notable illustration is Bel-Ray Co., Inc. v. Chemrite (Pty) Ltd., 181 F.3d 435 (3d Cir. 1999), where the court upheld the assignment of distribution rights under trade agreements despite an anti-assignment clause, ruling that the clause lacked clear language prohibiting the transfer of and caused no material alteration to the obligor's duties. This decision underscores the judicial preference for enforcing assignments when they align with the Restatement's guidelines.

Statutory and Contractual Restrictions

Statutory restrictions on the assignment of rights exist to protect interests, such as preventing , ensuring financial stability, and safeguarding vulnerable parties. , limits the assignment of claims against the under the Assignment of Claims Act, codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3727, which prohibits assignments until the claim is allowed, its amount is determined, and a warrant for payment is issued, thereby restricting premature transfers of government proceeds. Similarly, assignments of future wages are often void or heavily regulated to protect employees from exploitation; for instance, many state laws, such as those in New York under Personal Property Law § 46-49-A, require specific formalities like public filing and limit the amount assignable to prevent undue hardship. For benefits, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) imposes strict anti-alienation rules, stating in 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(a)-13 that qualified plan benefits may not be assigned or alienated, either at or in equity, to preserve retirement security. Contractual prohibitions on assignment, commonly known as "no assignment" clauses, are another key limitation, though their enforceability varies by jurisdiction and context. These clauses aim to preserve the original parties' relationship but are often interpreted narrowly; under the (UCC) § 9-406(d), any provision in an agreement that prohibits, restricts, or requires consent for the assignment of an account or payment intangible is ineffective, meaning the assignment remains valid despite the clause, and the account debtor must honor it upon notification. Courts typically enforce such clauses only to the extent they void the assignment if attempted without consent, but not to invalidate the underlying , promoting the free assignability of monetary rights while allowing parties to control non-monetary obligations. Jurisdictional variations further illustrate these restrictions. In , under the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 of the and Act 2010), consumer guarantees for goods and services are personal to the acquirer and cannot be assigned, as they are tied to the 's direct transaction to ensure protections against unfair practices remain with the intended . In the , anti-avoidance rules under the General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) in the 2013 target abusive tax arrangements, including assignments of rights designed to circumvent tax liabilities, allowing HM Revenue & Customs to counteract such schemes by adjusting tax outcomes to reflect economic substance. Exceptions to these restrictions apply in specific circumstances, such as proceedings or creations of interests, where policy favors recovery. Under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code § 365(f), anti-assignment clauses in executory contracts are generally unenforceable, permitting the or debtor-in-possession to assume and assign contracts free of such prohibitions, subject to limited exceptions for laws that inherently prohibit assignment like personal service contracts. Similarly, UCC § 9-406(e) carves out exceptions for interests, allowing assignments as collateral despite contractual bans, to facilitate financing. A recent development impacting assignments involves personal data rights under the European Union's (GDPR), effective 2018, which treats the transfer of in assignments as a form of requiring a lawful basis under Article 6 and, if to third countries, compliance with Chapter V transfer restrictions to ensure equivalent protection levels. For instance, assigning contract rights involving EU residents' data may trigger adequacy decisions, standard contractual clauses, or derogations under Article 49, preventing unauthorized cross-border flows that could undermine data subject rights.

Equitable Assignments

An equitable assignment is an informal transfer of rights under a , such as a or chose in action, that is enforceable in equity rather than at , arising where the assignor demonstrates a clear to benefit a third party without adhering to statutory formalities. Unlike legal assignments under section 136 of the , which require writing and notice to the , equitable assignments need no specific form, making them flexible for commercial transactions like the assignment of book debts. Creation of an equitable assignment occurs through any manifestation of intent to assign the benefit of a to the assignee, such as a direction to a to pay a third party directly, without requiring or written notice. These assignments are valid for existing or future rights, provided they are not mere expectancies, allowing, for example, the assignment of anticipated book debts from ongoing business operations. A seminal illustration is Ex parte Games (1879) 12 Ch D 314, where the court recognized an equitable assignment of book debts as a valid , enforceable against the assignor's estate despite lacking formalities. Enforcement of equitable assignments typically requires the assignee to sue in the assignor's name, often joining the assignor as a to prevent double liability for the , and the assignee takes subject to all equities—meaning any defenses or set-offs available against the assignor also bind the assignee. Key principles include the absence of any need for to perfect validity between assignor and assignee, though enhances priority against subsequent claimants and binds the . However, equitable assignments convey no legal title, leaving the assignee with only an vulnerable to the assignor's , where the rights may vest in the in unless perfected beforehand.

Liabilities and Obligations

Assignor's Continuing Duties

Upon assignment of a contractual right, the assignor retains certain implied warranties to the assignee, ensuring the validity and enforceability of the transferred interest. These warranties, rooted in , include assurances that the assignor has the authority to assign the right, that the right exists and is free from prior assignments, liens, or other encumbrances, and that no defenses or claims by the obligor will impair the assignee's ability to enforce it. In commercial contexts involving the assignment of or payment rights, similar protections arise under the (UCC), where the assignor implicitly warrants the right's existence and lack of encumbrances, though UCC § 9-607 primarily governs collection practices rather than originating these warranties directly. In assignments of property rights, such as leases or interests, the assignor often provides a covenant of quiet enjoyment, promising that the assignee will not be disturbed in possession by any superior claims arising from the assignor's or acts. This covenant, implied in many jurisdictions for lease assignments, protects the assignee against or interference due to defects in the assigned that the assignor knew or should have known about. If the assigned right proves defective—such as through the assignor's of its value, enforceability, or status—the assignee may hold the assignor liable for breach of these warranties, seeking for any resulting loss. For instance, courts have recognized that an assignor's failure to disclose prior satisfaction of the right by the obligor constitutes a breach, allowing the assignee to recover the assigned amount plus incidental costs. These continuing duties may be limited or excluded through express disclaimers, such as an assignment , which, if clearly stated and not unconscionable, relieves the assignor of implied warranties provided the assignee has a reasonable opportunity to inspect the right. In commercial assignments, UCC provisions permit similar modifications to warranties, ensuring parties can allocate risks contractually.

Assignee's Assumed Responsibilities

Upon accepting an assignment of , the assignee effectively steps into the shoes of the assignor, acquiring not only the benefits of the assigned right but also its vulnerabilities, including subjection to all defenses, setoffs, and that the obligor could have asserted against the original holder of the right. This principle ensures that the obligor is not prejudiced by the transfer, as the assignee inherits the same limitations and equities that burdened the assignor's claim. For instance, if the obligor has a arising from the assignor's prior breach of the underlying , such as defective performance, the obligor may raise it to reduce or extinguish the assignee's enforcement . The assignee also bears an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in exercising the assigned rights, refraining from actions that would materially impair the underlying obligation or the obligor's ability to perform. Unless the assignment is phrased to transfer "the contract" or uses general terms implying both rights and duties, as interpreted under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 328, acceptance of an assignment of rights alone does not operate as a promise to perform the assignor's duties; such duties require a separate delegation. This aligns with broader contract law principles requiring parties to act honestly and without interference that could undermine the contract's purpose. Critically, an assignment of does not automatically transfer the assignor's duties under the original to the assignee; the assignee assumes no performance obligations unless the assignment explicitly provides for such assumption or involves a of duties. However, once the obligor receives notification of the assignment, the assignee acquires the responsibility to collect payments directly and in accordance with the terms, as the obligor is then obligated to render to the assignee rather than the assignor. In commercial contexts governed by the (UCC), § 9-404 further delineates the assignee's position by limiting the obligor's (account debtor's) ability to assert defenses or claims in setoff against the assignee after receiving authenticated notification of the assignment. Specifically, defenses or claims arising from the underlying agreement that accrue before notification remain available to the obligor, but new setoffs post-notification are generally barred, except for recoupment claims directly related to the assigned obligation. This provision protects the assignee's collection efforts while preserving the obligor's pre-existing equities. A practical of these responsibilities arises in the assignment of payment rights, where the assignee of a landlord's rent receivables becomes subject to the tenant's defenses, such as claims of breaches by the original that reduce the rent due. The assignee must thus address or accommodate these defenses in when seeking enforcement, without assuming the landlord's ongoing maintenance duties unless separately delegated.

Remedies and Disputes

Revocability and Challenges

In jurisdictions, the revocability of an assignment of contract rights hinges primarily on whether it is gratuitous or supported by . Assignments made for valuable are irrevocable, as they effect a complete transfer enforceable against the assignor, obligor, and subsequent parties. In contrast, gratuitous assignments—those without —are generally revocable by the assignor at will, unless it is in a writing signed by the assignor and delivered to the assignee, or accompanied by the delivery of a writing that serves as a or of the right assigned. Challenges to the validity of an assignment often arise from vitiating factors affecting the assignor's , similar to those invalidating contracts. Common grounds include , where the assignee induces the assignment through ; duress, involving threats that coerce the assignor; or lack of capacity, such as when the assignor is or mentally incompetent. In cases of equitable assignments, —exerted through a relationship of trust or dominance—may also void the transfer, particularly if the assignee exploited the assignor's vulnerability. These challenges render the assignment void or voidable at the assignor's election, restoring rights to the original holder. Partial revocation may occur for portions of a gratuitous assignment where the conditions for irrevocability are not met, allowing the assignor to reclaim those unprotected segments without affecting parts that satisfy the requirements. In the context of consumer debts, the Federal Trade Commission's Holder in Due Course Rule, reaffirmed in a 2012 advisory opinion, offers targeted protection to assignees by limiting consumer challenges related to seller misconduct; while consumers may assert claims and defenses against the assignee, recovery is capped at the amounts already paid under the contract, preventing disproportionate liability. To effect revocation or address challenges, affected parties typically pursue judicial remedies, including a action to obtain a declaration of the assignment's invalidity or an to halt enforcement by the assignee pending resolution. These equitable procedures ensure prompt intervention while balancing the interests of all parties involved.

Defenses Against Enforcement

In the context of contract rights assignment, an obligor (the party owing performance) may assert various defenses against the assignee's enforcement efforts, generally standing in the same position as they would against the original assignor. These defenses ensure that the assignee does not acquire greater rights than the assignor held, preserving the obligor's protections under the underlying contract. Under common law principles, as codified in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 336, the assignee's rights are subject to all defenses, setoffs, and claims in recoupment that the obligor could raise against the assignor, particularly those arising before the obligor receives notice of the assignment. Similarly, in secured transactions, Uniform Commercial Code § 9-404 provides that an assignee's rights are subject to defenses or claims in recoupment from the original transaction and any defenses accruing before notification of the assignment. Personal defenses, which arise from the underlying contract or transaction, are available against the assignee to the same extent as against the assignor, especially if they predate notice of the assignment. Examples include failure of consideration, where the obligor did not receive the promised benefit, rendering the contract unenforceable; breach of warranty or misrepresentation by the assignor; and illegality, if the contract violates public policy or statute. These defenses bind the assignee because the assignment transfers only the assignor's existing rights, without enhancing them, as affirmed in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 336(1), which limits the assignee to the assignor's enforceable duty from the obligor. For instance, if goods assigned under a sales contract were defective, the obligor can withhold payment from the assignee on that basis. Real defenses, which attack the fundamental validity of the assigned right, remain available against the assignee regardless of notice or purchase. These include of the original , material alteration that changes its terms without consent, or incapacity of the assignor at formation, such as minority or mental incompetence, which voids the ab initio. Unlike personal defenses, real defenses are not cut off by the assignment process, as they negate the existence of any enforceable right transferred, consistent with the principle that assignees cannot enforce void instruments. Equitable defenses, rooted in fairness and equity, may also bar enforcement by the assignee if they apply to the original contract. Unconscionability, where terms are grossly unfair and the obligor lacked meaningful choice, renders the contract unenforceable under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 208, and thus available against the assignee as a defense to the underlying duty. Waiver occurs if the assignor relinquished a right that the obligor relied upon, estopping enforcement; this too binds the assignee, as equitable principles prevent unjust enrichment from the assignment. Statutory defenses provide additional barriers to enforcement of assigned rights, often independent of the assignment notice. A claim may be time-barred if the has expired, preventing suit regardless of the assignee's involvement; for example, many states impose a three- to six-year limit on debts, after which the obligor can move for dismissal. limits, capping interest rates to prevent exploitative lending, can void excessive interest portions or the entire in states treating usurious contracts as , allowing the obligor to defend against the assignee on that ground. A prominent example is the obligor's bankruptcy discharge, which serves as an absolute defense against post-discharge enforcement of the assigned debt. Under 11 U.S.C. § 524, a chapter 7 or 13 discharge releases the debtor from personal liability on qualifying debts, and this binds assignees who acquire the claim after filing, as the discharge extinguishes the underlying . The obligor need not plead the discharge affirmatively in some jurisdictions, as it is a complete bar to collection, ensuring assignees cannot revive discharged liabilities.

Resolution of Successive Assignments

When the same contractual right is assigned successively by the same assignor to multiple assignees, conflicts arise regarding priority, requiring rules to determine which assignee holds the superior claim. In jurisdictions, these rules balance protection for the first assignee's expectation with safeguards for subsequent bona fide purchasers. The obligor, to avoid multiple liability, is generally discharged by paying the first assignee who provides of the assignment, thereby resolving the obligor's in such disputes. Under the English rule, known as the rule in Dearle v. Hall (1828) 3 Russ 1, priority among successive equitable assignees of the same chose in action is determined by the order in which is given to the obligor or . The first assignee to provide such notice prevails, provided they took for value without notice of any prior assignment; this equitable ensures that in notifying the obligor protects the assignee's interest against later claims. In Dearle v. Hall, the court held that among competing assignees of interests, the assignee who first notified the trustees obtained priority, establishing notice as the key factor in equitable assignments. In the United States, the American rule generally favors the first assignee in time, granting them superior equitable title regardless of notice to the obligor, as articulated in Salem Trust Co. v. Manufacturers' Finance Co. (264 U.S. 182, 1924), where the Supreme Court affirmed that "the rule is that the first assignment is entitled to priority." This approach, adopted in the Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 342, holds that a subsequent assignee prevails only in limited exceptions, such as obtaining payment, judgment, novation, or possession of an instrument evidencing the right, and only if acting in good faith without knowledge of the prior assignment. However, for assignments of accounts receivable or security interests under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 9-322, priority among conflicting perfected interests is determined by the first to file a financing statement or perfect the interest, with unperfected interests subordinate to perfected ones. The equitable rule for successive assignments prioritizes the first assignee who provides value and gives to the obligor, aligning with principles that protect bona fide purchasers while upholding temporal order where equities are equal. Under the American rule, the initial assignment remains valid even if subsequent assignments are gratuitous, rendering later non-valuable transfers ineffective against the first assignee's claim.

Specialized Assignments

Property and Tangible Rights

In the context of assignment under common law, tangible property rights encompass both real and personal property, where the transfer of interests must adhere to specific formalities to ensure enforceability and protect the parties involved. Unlike general assignments of contractual rights, those involving tangible assets often require physical or documentary acts to effectuate the transfer, reflecting the inherent connection between the right and the physical object. These assignments are governed by principles that prioritize possession, privity, and compliance with statutory frameworks to prevent disputes over ownership or liability. For real property, particularly in the assignment of leases, the assignee steps into privity of estate with the lessor, establishing a direct landlord-tenant relationship that binds the assignee to the lease's ongoing obligations. This privity arises upon the assignment, making the assignee liable for rent and other covenants that touch and concern the , while the original lessee remains in and may retain secondary liability. Covenants run with the only if they meet criteria including intent to bind successors, to the assignee, relation to the 's use or value, and vertical privity between the original covenantor and the assignee's predecessor. Assignments of , such as chattels, generally necessitate delivery or transfer of possession to complete the assignment and confer full rights to the assignee, as mere agreement without this act may leave the transfer incomplete under principles. This delivery serves to evidence the intent to pass title and protects against claims of or incomplete conveyance. In sales contexts, the implies that property in goods passes when the parties intend, often coinciding with delivery or , thereby shifting and to the buyer upon such transfer. Security interests in tangible are assigned subject to perfection requirements under the (UCC) Article 9, where filing a financing statement is typically required to perfect the against third parties, except in cases like purchase-money security interests or collateral in the secured party's possession. This filing provides of the , ensuring priority in the event of the debtor's or competing claims, and the assignment itself does not require additional filing if the original was perfected. Certain rights face statutory or contractual restrictions on assignment, notably anti-assignment clauses in ground leases, which prohibit transfers without the landlord's consent to maintain control over the property's use and the tenant's . These clauses are enforceable in jurisdictions, rendering unauthorized assignments void or subject to termination, though courts may scrutinize them for reasonableness to avoid undue . A representative example is the assignment of notes secured by , which requires the endorser to sign the note (often via allonge) and deliver it to the assignee to validly transfer the right to payments and remedies. Without proper endorsement and delivery, the assignment may fail to convey the note's benefits, leaving the assignee unable to foreclose or collect, as the note represents the underlying tied to the .

Intellectual Property Rights

In the context of rights, assignments involve the transfer of ownership or interests in intangible assets such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks, subject to specific statutory formalities to ensure validity and . These transfers typically require written instruments and, in many cases, recording with relevant authorities to protect against third-party claims. Unlike general equitable assignments, IP assignments often demand explicit compliance with specialized laws to avoid invalidation, focusing on economic exploitation rights while preserving certain non-transferable attributes. For copyrights, assignments must be executed in writing under 17 U.S.C. § 204(a), which mandates an instrument of conveyance or memorandum signed by the owner to validate any transfer of ownership, excluding those by . This requirement applies to the economic rights, including , distribution, and public performance, but does not encompass moral rights, which remain inalienable or limited under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 for qualifying works. In practice, such assignments enable creators to monetize their works while retaining potential reversionary interests if not perpetual. Patent assignments facilitate the full transfer of ownership, requiring execution via a written document and recording with the Patent and Office (USPTO) under 35 U.S.C. § 261 and 37 C.F.R. § 3.11 to establish priority against subsequent purchasers. The assignment can explicitly include rights to future improvements or inventions related to the patented , provided the language in the agreement covers prospective developments conceived by the assignor, thereby extending protection to ongoing innovations without necessitating separate transfers. Trademark assignments under the (15 U.S.C. § 1060) are valid only when accompanied by the goodwill of the in which the mark is used, ensuring continuity of consumer association and preventing . "Naked" assignments—those transferring the mark without associated goodwill—are deemed invalid as they risk misleading the public about product quality or source, leading to potential cancellation of the registration. Emerging , including those tied to non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and software licenses, are generally assignable unless the underlying agreement deems them personal or non-transferable. In the , Directive (EU) 2019/790 on in the facilitates transfers of exclusive by mandating transparency and fair remuneration for authors upon assignment or licensing, though it excludes computer programs from certain revocation provisions. For NFTs, which often represent digital assets like artwork or media, assignment of underlying IP requires a separate written agreement beyond the transaction itself, as the NFT token alone does not convey or other IP ownership. Software licenses follow similar principles; in the EU, the Court of Justice's ruling in UsedSoft v. International Corp. (Case C-128/11) allows resale and assignment of perpetual licenses post-exhaustion of distribution , provided the original deletes their copy. Recent developments highlight challenges in assigning AI-generated IP, as illustrated by Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023), where a U.S. district court denied copyright registration for an artwork autonomously created by AI software, ruling that human authorship is a statutory prerequisite under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), thus precluding any valid assignment of protectable rights. This decision, affirmed on appeal in 2025, underscores gaps in traditional assignment frameworks for non-human creations, prompting debates on authorship thresholds. In October 2025, Thaler petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, which remains pending as of November 2025. Blockchain technology addresses some of these gaps through smart contracts, which can automate IP assignments by encoding transfer terms on a for immutable proof of ownership and execution. However, such assignments must still comply with national recording requirements, such as USPTO filing, to achieve legal enforceability against third parties.

Partnership and Business Interests

In partnerships governed by the Uniform Partnership Act, a partner's is partially assignable, allowing the assignee to receive the assignor's share of profits and distributions but conferring no to participate in , access partnership books, or exercise other partnership powers. This assignment does not dissolve the or alter the relations among existing partners. The rationale preserves the personal nature of partnership while enabling economic transfers, as reflected in the Act's provisions that limit the assignee to economic benefits only. Corporate shares, in contrast, are generally freely transferable as , enabling s to sell, gift, or otherwise convey their ownership interests without restriction unless limited by the corporation's articles of incorporation, bylaws, or a separate shareholder agreement. Under the Model Business Corporation Act, valid restrictions on transfer—such as rights of first refusal or prohibitions on transfers to competitors—must be reasonable, conspicuous, and noted on share certificates to bind transferees. These limitations aim to protect corporate control or maintain structures, but absent such provisions, transfers occur via endorsement and delivery of the share certificate or through book-entry systems. Assignments involving business contracts, particularly in (M&A), often encounter anti-assignment clauses that prohibit transfers of or obligations without to prevent unwanted changes in contractual relationships. However, these clauses typically do not bar assignments "by ," such as those resulting from a merger, consolidation, or change of control, unless the provision explicitly addresses such events; courts enforce this distinction to facilitate corporate transactions without routine requirements. In practice, M&A agreements may include separate change-of-control provisions to address potential terminations, but standard anti-assignment language alone rarely impedes deals structured as asset purchases or stock sales. For companies (LLCs), assignment of a membership interest generally transfers only the economic "transferable interest"—entitling the assignee to distributions—but does not automatically grant , such as voting or management participation, under the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act. Admission as a full member requires affirmative from all members or compliance with the operating agreement's terms, which often mandate unanimous approval to protect the entity's close-knit structure; without admission, the assignee remains a mere transferee with limited remedies. Operating agreements frequently impose additional restrictions, such as buy-sell or prohibitions on transfers to outsiders, to maintain member control. Joint venture interests, typically structured as contractual arrangements akin to , are subject to limitations outlined in the joint venture agreement, which often requires partner consent for any assignment to safeguard collaborative decision-making and shared objectives. Absent explicit provisions, assignments may convey economic benefits like profit shares but exclude control rights, similar to partnership rules, preventing unilateral disruptions to the venture's operations. For instance, in the assignment of a partnership receivable within a context, the assignee receives the corresponding profits but acquires no voting or management authority in the underlying entity.

Tort Claims and Personal Rights

In common law jurisdictions, claims arising from torts are generally not assignable prior to judgment, as such assignments are viewed as promoting and champerty—practices historically condemned for encouraging speculative litigation and interfering in disputes without a legitimate interest. This prohibition stems from the personal nature of the , which ties the closely to the victim's unique harm, making it inalienable to prevent the commercialization of personal suffering. For instance, courts have consistently held that a right to sue for physical harm, such as in cases resulting in bodily , cannot be transferred to a third party before resolution, as it would undermine the policy against third-party speculation on outcomes. Legal malpractice claims are similarly non-assignable in many jurisdictions, including , where they are treated as inherently personal torts involving breaches of duty and trust between attorney and client. This restriction protects the confidential attorney-client relationship and prevents the assignment from being used as a tool for unrelated parties to pursue litigation motives, such as in business disputes. courts have emphasized that allowing such assignments would erode and lead to increased vexatious suits, reinforcing the rule through considerations. However, limited exceptions may apply in narrow circumstances, such as when the assignment occurs in the context of a larger transaction directly related to the underlying , though these are scrutinized closely to avoid . Non-compete agreements, while often assignable in the sale of a as part of transferred goodwill, face limitations when involves or individual rights, where courts may restrict the assignee's ability to pursue remedies tied to the original employee's unique role. In such cases, the covenant's assignability is conditioned on explicit contractual language permitting transfer, but personal —such as seeking injunctive relief based on the employee's specific skills—remains limited to avoid imposing undue burdens on individual liberty post-sale. This distinction ensures that while interests can propagate the restriction, it does not fully detach from its personal origins, balancing commercial needs with protections against perpetual personal restraints. A key exception to the non-assignability of tort claims arises in insurance subrogation, where an insurer, upon paying the insured's loss, steps into the insured's shoes to pursue recovery against the tortfeasor, effectively assigning the claim without violating champerty rules. This mechanism is recognized as equitable rather than a true assignment, allowing insurers to recoup payments for both and claims in most states, as it aligns with principles and prevents . Courts uphold this exception because the insurer acts in the insured's interest, not for speculative gain, distinguishing it from prohibited third-party purchases of claims. The underlying policy rationale for restricting assignments of personal tort claims is to deter champerty, which involves funding or acquiring litigation for a share of the proceeds, thereby discouraging frivolous suits and preserving the adversarial system's integrity by ensuring parties have a genuine stake. However, once a claim is reduced to a final judgment, it becomes assignable as a chose in action akin to a , transforming the personal right into an enforceable monetary that can be transferred without champerty concerns. This post-judgment assignability facilitates and commercial transactions while maintaining barriers to pre-litigation speculation. Statutory restrictions in some jurisdictions may further codify these limits, though they generally align with principles.

Bankruptcy and Insolvency Contexts

In bankruptcy proceedings under the Bankruptcy Code, the automatic stay provision, enacted in 11 U.S.C. § 362, immediately halts most pre-petition collection actions against the debtor upon filing, including attempts to enforce or perfect assignments of claims or property made before the petition date. This stay serves to preserve the debtor's estate by preventing creditors from unilaterally transferring or assigning rights that could diminish the pool of assets available for equitable distribution among all creditors. For instance, any pre-petition assignment of receivables or other claims is suspended, requiring parties to seek court relief to proceed. Bankruptcy trustees wield significant powers to challenge and unwind certain assignments through avoidance actions, particularly those constituting avoidable preferences under 11 U.S.C. § 547 or fraudulent transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 548. Under § 547, a may avoid transfers—including assignments—that occur within 90 days before the filing (or one year for insiders) if they favor one over others, enable the to receive more than in a Chapter 7 , and are made while the was insolvent on account of an antecedent debt. Similarly, § 548 empowers to avoid assignments or transfers made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud , or those for less than reasonably equivalent value when the was insolvent, undercapitalized, or incurred debts beyond ability to pay. These mechanisms ensure assignments do not unfairly deplete the estate, with the burden often on the transferee to prove defenses like contemporaneous exchange or ordinary course of . Post-petition assignments of claims are permissible but subject to strict oversight, as pre-petition rights vest in the debtor's estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541, requiring approval for any disposition to protect interests. In practice, assignees must file notices or motions for approval, particularly in claims trading scenarios where proofs of claim are transferred, ensuring the process aligns with the estate's administration and does not disrupt reorganization efforts. This contrasts with pre-petition assignments, which the may reject or subordinate as part of estate management. Internationally, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border (1997) facilitates harmonization by promoting recognition of foreign proceedings and cooperation in handling assignments involving multinational debtors, thereby mitigating conflicts over cross-border claim transfers in insolvency cases. Adopted by over 50 jurisdictions, it emphasizes access for foreign representatives and relief measures to coordinate asset recovery, including assignments, without favoring domestic creditors unduly. A representative example involves the assignment of accounts receivable: if a debtor assigns such receivables to a creditor within 90 days prior to bankruptcy filing, the trustee may claw back the assignment as a preferential transfer under § 547, recovering the value for the estate to ensure fair distribution.

International and Modern Variations

Common Law Jurisdictions

In common law jurisdictions, the assignment of rights—particularly choses in action such as contractual debts or benefits—generally follows principles derived from English equity and statute, allowing the transfer of rights from assignor to assignee while subjecting the assignee to existing equities against the original right. These systems emphasize the assignability of non-personal rights, with variations in formal requirements, priority rules, and restrictions based on statutory frameworks and judicial precedents. In the United States, assignments of contractual rights in commercial transactions are primarily governed by the (UCC), particularly Section 2-210, which permits the assignment of rights under sales contracts unless the assignment would materially change the other party's duty, significantly increase its burden or risk, or impair its chance of obtaining return performance. For claims against the federal government, the Assignment of Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3727) imposes strict conditions, requiring that assignments occur only after a claim is allowed, its amount determined, and a payment warrant issued; the assignment must be in writing, attested by two witnesses, and acknowledged before an official who certifies that the assignor understands its effects. These rules balance commercial flexibility with protections against fraud in government dealings, extending to secured transactions under UCC Article 9 for broader commercial assignments. The maintains a dual system of legal and equitable assignments under the Law of Property Act 1925. Section 136 provides for legal assignments of choses in action, requiring an absolute assignment in writing signed by the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only), express notice in writing to the debtor or trustee, and vesting the assignee with the legal right to sue in their own name, all remedies, and the power to give a valid discharge. In contrast, equitable assignments offer greater flexibility, arising from any intention to assign without strict formalities, treated as a substitutive transfer of the chose that binds the parties inter se and, upon notice to the obligor, prevents new equities from arising in favor of the obligor; however, the assignee typically sues in the assignor's name unless joined. This framework prioritizes notice for perfection and priority, as per the rule in Dearle v Hall (1828), where successive assignees rank according to the order of notice to the obligor. Australian law closely mirrors the UK's approach through state and territory Acts, such as section 12 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), which codifies legal assignments with requirements for writing, absoluteness, and , enabling the assignee to enforce independently while taking subject to prior equities. Equitable assignments are recognized without for validity between assignor and assignee, perfected by to bind the obligor, and the emphasizes substance over form in assessing transfers, focusing on the parties' intention to effect a genuine shift rather than mere procedural compliance, as illustrated in cases like Norman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1963) 109 CLR 9, where the court scrutinized the economic reality of purported assignments of future . This judicial stance ensures assignments of non-personal contractual proceed without increasing the obligor's burdens, subject to the nemo dat principle limiting the assignee to the assignor's position. In , assignment rules exhibit provincial variations under personal property security legislation like the Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) in most provinces, which governs assignments of accounts and chattel paper as security interests, requiring registration for perfection against third parties and prioritizing perfected interests over unperfected ones. For , federal statutes such as the Copyright Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. C-42) allow assignments of interests, which must be in writing and registered for validity against subsequent purchasers. Priority among successive assignments follows the English rule in Dearle v Hall, with the first assignee to provide notice to the obligor gaining precedence, though PPSA regimes may override this for secured assignments through filing priority. Across these jurisdictions, harmonization stems from the pervasive influence of English precedents, such as the Trendtex Trading Corp v (1982) AC 679 principle requiring a "genuine commercial " for assigning bare to litigate, which has liberalized rules in and while informing U.S. approaches. Differences persist in specialized areas like wage assignments: the U.S. permits broad assignability under state laws with anti-assignment clauses in employment contracts often unenforceable in equity; the restricts assignments of future wages without under ; limits unearned salary assignments under and industrial relations statutes, such as the (Cth); and imposes public policy exceptions prohibiting assignments of public officers' salaries or , as in Fredrickson v Insurance Corp of (1986) 28 DLR (4th) 414. These variations underscore ongoing efforts toward uniformity to facilitate cross-border commerce, though local protections against exploitation remain entrenched.

Civil Law Systems

In civil law systems, the assignment of claims is primarily governed by codified provisions in national civil codes, emphasizing statutory rules over judicial precedents. These systems typically treat assignment as a contractual transfer of rights without altering the underlying obligation between the original debtor (obligor) and the new creditor (assignee), maintaining the principle of privity while allowing the assignee to step into the assignor's position. Unlike more flexible equitable doctrines in other traditions, civil law assignments often require formal notification to the obligor for enforceability against them, ensuring the debtor's protections against unnotified transfers. Under French law, assignment (cession de créance) is regulated by Articles 1321-1326 of the Civil Code. Article 1321 defines it as a contract by which the assignor transfers all or part of a claim—present or future, determined or determinable—to the assignee, either gratuitously or for consideration, including any accessories to the claim; debtor consent is unnecessary unless the claim is expressly non-assignable. The transfer is effective immediately between assignor and assignee, but to be opposable to the debtor or third parties, it requires formal notification to the debtor or their express acceptance (Article 1322), allowing the debtor to raise defenses such as nullity or prior payments against the assignee only if unnotified. The assignor guarantees the claim's existence and accessories unless the assignee assumes the risk (Article 1323), but no automatic change in privity occurs, preserving the original contractual relationship. In German law, assignment (Abtretung) follows the abstract principle under § 398 of the (BGB), which states that a claim may be transferred by from the to another, with the new immediately taking the assignor's place upon agreement. This renders the assignment independent of the underlying , valid without obligor consent or notification for inter partes effect, though notification is advisable to prevent the obligor from discharging the to the original . The system prioritizes contractual autonomy, with the assignee acquiring all rights and defenses available to the assignor, but obligor protections like set-off remain intact until notified. The European Union's (EC) No 593/2008 addresses cross-border assignments in Article 14, harmonizing choice-of-law rules to facilitate trade. The assignor-assignee relationship is governed by the law of their (Article 14(1)), while assignability, assignee-obligor relations, invocation against the obligor, and discharge conditions follow the law of the assigned claim (Article 14(2)); this includes security transfers like pledges. By reducing uncertainties in multinational transactions, the promotes assignments without mandating uniform notification but deferring to the applicable national law, often requiring it for third-party effects in member states. Key differences in civil law systems include the strict reliance on notification for opposable validity against the obligor, contrasting with less rigid notice requirements elsewhere, and limited equitable flexibility due to codification, which prioritizes debtor safeguards over assignee priorities. For instance, in Italian law, cessione del credito under Articles 1260-1264 of the allows informal transfers between assignor and assignee, but opposability to the demands written notification or acknowledgment (Article 1261), with the able to invoke defenses like set-off if unnotified (Article 1263); the assignor warrants the claim's existence but not always unless specified (Article 1264).

Recent Developments in Digital Assignments

In the realm of assignments, digital assets such as are often transferred through wallet mechanisms, where control of private keys effectively assigns ownership rights without traditional contractual formalities. This process leverages technology to record transfers immutably, enabling seamless assignments of value or rights associated with the assets. For instance, non-fungible tokens (NFTs) governed by the ERC-721 standard on the automate ownership transfers via smart contracts, which execute predefined rules upon meeting conditions like payment confirmation, thereby minimizing disputes over assignment validity. Assignments involving data rights under frameworks like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) typically occur through transfers of controller responsibilities, where one entity assigns its role in processing to another, requiring explicit or contractual safeguards to maintain compliance. Such transfers must ensure continuity in data protection obligations, as the assignee inherits liabilities for privacy breaches, potentially exposing them to fines up to 4% of global annual turnover if mishandled. Privacy impacts are amplified in these assignments, as cross-jurisdictional shifts can trigger adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses to prevent unauthorized access or loss of individual rights, underscoring the need for thorough transfer impact assessments. The assignability of (AI) and software assets, particularly trained models, has been clarified by U.S. Copyright Office guidance, including its 2023 policy and 2025 reports on copyrightability (January 2025) and generative AI (May 2025), stating that works generated solely by AI lack eligibility due to insufficient human creative input, limiting the assignability of pure AI outputs while allowing protection—and thus assignment—for human-modified elements within hybrid creations. The January 2025 report (Part 2) emphasizes that protection applies only to human-authored elements in AI-assisted works, requiring clear delineation in assignments. The May 2025 report (Part 3) discusses defenses for data, affecting the transfer of AI models trained on content. This guidance affects the transfer of proprietary AI models, as assignees must delineate protectable components from non-copyrightable algorithmic generations to avoid invalidating the assignment. Key case law has shaped digital assignments, notably the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) action against , where a 2023 district court ruling determined that certain XRP token sales constituted unregistered securities, impacting the assignability of such cryptocurrencies as contracts subject to federal disclosure rules. The case, which reached a settlement in May 2025 under which Ripple paid a $50 million penalty to the SEC, with the remainder of the original $125 million judgment returned from , highlighted how programmatic sales via digital platforms can trigger securities laws, requiring assignees to verify compliance to enforce transfers. In the , the (DSA) of 2022 imposes obligations on online platforms for and user rights, influencing assignments of platform-related by mandating transparency in transferring intermediary liabilities and data access privileges. Blockchain's public ledgers address traditional notice gaps in assignments by providing a tamper-proof, decentralized record accessible worldwide, serving as of transfers for digital assets like cryptocurrencies without relying on centralized registries. However, cross-border enforceability remains challenging, as varying jurisdictional interpretations of validity and asset classification can undermine recognition of assignments, necessitating harmonized international standards to mitigate risks of invalidation or conflicting claims. Looking ahead, poses emerging threats to digital signatures used in assignments, as it could decrypt widely used algorithms like RSA and ECC, potentially invalidating electronic authentications; this has spurred development of to safeguard future transfers.

References

  1. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/assignment
  2. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/11593-contracts-2024/resources/8.3.8-restatement-2d-of-contracts-317-assignment-of-a-right/
  3. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/novation
  4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-210
  5. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/246-contracts-cases-and-materials/resources/13.3.7-notes-speelman-v-pascal/
  6. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/20.500.13051/2214/2/Assignment_of_Contract_Rights.pdf
  7. https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/assignments-basic-law
  8. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-107-6442?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  9. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-107-5828?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  10. https://www.kubickidraper.com/what-is-an-equitable-assignment/
  11. https://assignments.uslegal.com/form-and-requisites-of-a-valid-assignment/
  12. https://rvcc.pressbooks.pub/businesslaw131interactive/chapter/12-2-assignment-of-contract-rights/
  13. https://www.upcounsel.com/assignment-of-contracts
  14. https://assignments.uslegal.com/subject-matter-of-assignments/contracts-involving-personal-skill-or-confidential-relationship/
  15. https://djetlawyer.com/assignment-of-choses-in-action/
  16. https://www.britannica.com/topic/in-jure-cessio
  17. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315308426_About_Legal_Notions_Cession_Novation_Subrogation_and_Assignation
  18. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1327628
  19. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=13414&context=mlr
  20. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=law_faculty
  21. https://www.studocu.com/en-au/document/university-of-wollongong/bachelor-of-commercebachelor-of-laws/norman-v-federal-commissioner-of-taxation-extracts/34051881
  22. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/understanding-the-law-of-assignment/giving-notice-of-equitable-assignments-and-its-effect-on-competing-assignees-the-rule-in-dearle-v-hall/E92B94209B0BF465BFC891D76FDE3346
  23. https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_law-for-entrepreneurs/s17-01-assignment-of-contract-rights.html
  24. https://www.upcounsel.com/assignment-of-contract-rights
  25. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/136
  26. https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2023/february/20/-/media/7904ac8bc8c346069ac621c14284803a.ashx
  27. https://www.mayerbrown.com/en/insights/publications/2025/02/execution-of-legal-assignments-under-section-136-of-the-law-of-property-act-1925
  28. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statute_of_frauds
  29. https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/real-property-law/deeds-real-property/
  30. https://www.hsfkramer.com/notes/construction/2023-04/legal-terms-explained-assignment
  31. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/7001
  32. https://www.docusign.com/products/electronic-signature/learn/esign-act-ueta
  33. https://www.upcounsel.com/delegation-vs-assignment
  34. https://www.wfw.com/articles/assignment-and-novation-spot-the-difference/
  35. https://www.kwm.com/au/en/insights/latest-thinking/what-is-the-difference-between-an-assignment-and-a-novation.html
  36. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/novation.asp
  37. https://www.parryfield.com/contract-assignment-versus-contract-novation-whats-the-difference/
  38. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/5-546-6326?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  39. https://bcom.institute/business-law/how-contracts-can-be-assigned
  40. https://www.litera.com/blog/are-anti-assignment-clauses-enforceable
  41. https://advance.lexis.com/open/document/openwebdocview/-322-Contractual-Prohibition-of-Assignment/?pdmfid=1000522&pddocfullpath=%252Fshared%252Fdocument%252Fanalytical-materials%252Furn%253AcontentItem%253A42GD-2SN0-00YG-M0DJ-00000-00&pdcomponentid=12225
  42. https://www.lexplug.com/topics/contracts/restrictions-on-transfer
  43. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1437214.html
  44. https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/contracts/contracts-keyed-to-farnsworth/assignment-and-delegation/bel-ray-company-v-chemrite-pty-ltd/
  45. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/3727
  46. https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2014/pep/article-3-a/
  47. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.401%28a%29-13
  48. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-406
  49. https://www.reedsmith.com/en/perspectives/2012/05/antiassignment-provisions-part-two--legal-override
  50. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-avoidance-general-anti-abuse-rules
  51. https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/
  52. https://gdpr-info.eu/chapter-5/
  53. https://lawreview.lse.ac.uk/articles/742/files/6734b68ba678d.pdf
  54. https://www.wlv.ac.uk/media/departments/faculty-of-social-sciences/documents/wolverhampton-law-journal/4.-P-Walton.pdf
  55. https://biz.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Civil_Law/Law_of_Commercial_Transactions/14%253A_Third-Party_Rights/14.02%253A_Assignment_of_Contract_Rights
  56. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-607
  57. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/covenant_of_quiet_enjoyment
  58. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2827&context=smulr
  59. https://www.jamesmartinpa.com/blog/disclaimer-wording-in-as-is-real-estate-contracts/
  60. https://www.cali.org/lessons/web/ct11_1/new_article_9three.htm
  61. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-404
  62. https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/28:9-404
  63. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-304
  64. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/9515-contracts-2023/resources/8.3.4-restatement-second-of-contracts-328-interpretation-of-words-of-assignment-effect-of-acceptance-of-assignment/
  65. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-405
  66. https://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/1981-Restatement-Second-of-Contracts-1981.pdf
  67. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advisory_opinions/16-c.f.r.part-433-federal-trade-commission-trade-regulation-rule-concerning-preservation-consumers-claims/120510advisoryopinionholderrule.pdf
  68. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_57
  69. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65
  70. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/246-contracts-cases-and-materials/resources/13.5.3-restatement-of-contracts-second-336/
  71. https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/can-debt-collectors-collect-a-debt-thats-several-years-old-en-1423/
  72. https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/workshop/leo/leo18_honigsberg.pdf
  73. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3870&context=vlr
  74. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5394&context=wvlr
  75. https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1423&context=udlr
  76. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/246-contracts-cases-and-materials/resources/13.6.1.1-dearle-v-hall/
  77. https://opencasebook.org/casebooks/276-contracts-cases-and-materials/resources/13.6.1.5-restatement-of-contracts-second-342/
  78. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-322
  79. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/covenant_that_runs_with_the_land
  80. https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2947&context=jour_mlr
  81. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1958.tb00456.x
  82. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54/section/18
  83. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/9/9-310
  84. https://aaronhall.com/limitations-on-assignability-in-ground-lease-deals/
  85. https://norrismclaughlin.com/nred/uncategorized/lease-assignments-not-guaranteed/
  86. https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/cracking-the-mortgage-assignment-shell-game/
  87. https://legal-info.lawyers.com/bankruptcy/foreclosures/the-difference-between-a-mortgage-assignment-and-a-note-endorsement.html
  88. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/204
  89. https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyright-assignment/
  90. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s302.html
  91. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1622&context=cklawreview
  92. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1060
  93. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32019L0790
  94. https://www.copyright.gov/policy/nft-study/Joint-USPTO-USCO-Report-on-NFTs-and-Intellectual-Property.pdf
  95. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/docs/district-court-decision-affirming-refusal-of-registration.pdf
  96. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25A82.html
  97. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/blockchain-and-ip-law-a-match-made-in-crypto-heaven-40267
  98. https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/2024/05/23/blockchain-and-ip-rights
  99. https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/title-23/article-4/chapter-1/section-23-4-1-27/
  100. https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/If13ba3b4d4d811e598dc8b09b4f043e0/Transfer-of-shares?viewType=FullText&transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  101. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=63a581c8-c6d0-4e48-b6bc-ee92b09d62a9
  102. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/do-change-of-control-transactions-9929230/
  103. https://www.airdberlis.com/insights/publications/publication/anti-assignment-provisions-and-assignments-by-operation-of-law-what-do-i-have-to-do-what-should-i-do
  104. https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title48/Chapter3a/48-3a-S502.html
  105. https://www.upcounsel.com/assignment-of-interest-in-llc
  106. https://www.axley.com/publication_article/selling-limited-liability-company-membership-interests/
  107. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-020-4261?transitionType=Default&contextData=%28sc.Default%29
  108. https://www.bloomberglaw.com/external/document/X76AU4AC000000/m-a-overview-joint-ventures-definitions-legal-issues
  109. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/230476673.pdf
  110. https://lawrepository.ualr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=faculty_scholarship
  111. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4790&context=uclrev
  112. https://www.advocatemagazine.com/article/2020-december/assignment-of-claims
  113. https://www.cgcfirm.com/can-i-assign-my-legal-malpractice-claim/
  114. https://www.sdcba.org/?pg=Ethics-in-Brief--3-16-2014
  115. https://www.pasadenalaw.com/blog/2013/12/special-circumstances-legal-malpractice-case-may-assigned/
  116. https://corporate.findlaw.com/business-operations/non-compete-agreements-after-an-acquisition-are-they.html
  117. https://www.tradesecretsandemployeemobility.com/assignment-lessons-8th-circuit-finds-assigned-non-competes-enforceable-under-certain-facts
  118. https://www.mavricklaw.com/blog/florida-non-compete-law-a-general-assignment-clause-in-a-contract-may-be-sufficient-to-assign-a-non-compete-provision/
  119. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/338/366/
  120. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2402&context=law_lawreview
  121. https://www.mwl-law.com/federal-tort-claims-act-subrogation/
  122. https://fhnylaw.com/the-assignment-of-litigation-rights-and-champerty/
  123. https://www.appellatelaw-nj.com/when-can-anticipated-proceeds-of-a-tort-claim-be-assigned
  124. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/law_facpub/231/
  125. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/362
  126. https://www.uscourts.gov/court-programs/bankruptcy/bankruptcy-basics/chapter-11-bankruptcy-basics
  127. https://www.okbar.org/barjournal/december-2023/bankruptcy-and-the-automatic-stay/
  128. https://www.wiley.law/media/publication/121_Preference_Action_Primer_Understanding_Section_547_Avoidance_Actions.pdf
  129. https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2019/02/eleventh-circuit-expands-subsequent-new-value
  130. https://www.fwlaw.com/insights/claims-trading-bankruptcy-cases
  131. https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/insolvency/modellaw/cross-border_insolvency
  132. https://uncitral.un.org/sites/uncitral.un.org/files/media-documents/uncitral/en/insolvency-e.pdf
  133. https://bhgrlaw.com/2019/01/04/bankruptcy-preferences-11-u-s-c-547-tips-for-construction-professionals/
  134. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2838&context=ilj
  135. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/understanding-the-law-of-assignment/different-models-of-equitable-assignment/B44DEEEB74A86C7F492A7D74467A2D67
  136. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLawTD/2003/1.pdf
  137. https://www.canlii.org/en/commentary/doc/1995CanLIIDocs124
  138. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT000006070721/LEGISCTA000032032398/
  139. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__398.html
  140. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32008R0593
  141. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364924000633
  142. https://www.pwchk.com/en/research-and-insights/fintech/nfts-legal-tax-accounting-considerations-dec2021.pdf
  143. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R47189/R47189.1.pdf
  144. https://www.edpb.europa.eu/sme-data-protection-guide/international-data-transfers_en
  145. https://securiti.ai/cnil-practical-guide-on-transfer-impact-assessment/
  146. https://www.gdprregister.eu/gdpr/data-transfer-impact-assessments/
  147. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf
  148. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
  149. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf
  150. https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2023-07/SEC%2520vs%2520Ripple%25207-13-23.pdf
  151. https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26306
  152. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/crenshaw-statement-ripple-050825
  153. https://www.bakerlaw.com/insights/ripple-case-reaches-final-judgment-as-digital-assets-law-continues-to-evolve/
  154. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/5/59
  155. https://katten.com/tokenization-of-real-world-assets-opportunities-challenges-and-the-path-ahead
  156. https://iclg.com/news/23203-the-quantum-reckoning-law-s-next-frontier
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.