meaning of non assignment clause

What is an Anti-Assignment Clause?

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

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

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

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

What is an assignment clause?

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

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

Language to look out for in anti-assignment clauses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What makes anti-assignment clauses enforceable?

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

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

How to negotiate anti-assignment clauses

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

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

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

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

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

• Specify the need for consent

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

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

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

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

• Require reasonable consent

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

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

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

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

Join our Newsletter

• Book Consultation

Newsletter Sign-Up

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

Sign up to our newsletter

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

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

Connect with us on LinkedIn

Global LinkedIn Page

Error: Contact form not found.

Arrange a Meeting

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

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

Anti-Assignment Clause: Everything You Need To Know

An anti-assignment clause prevents either of the parties to a contract from assigning tasks to a third party without the consent of the non-assigning party. 3 min read updated on February 01, 2023

An anti-assignment clause prevents either of the parties to a contract from assigning tasks to a third party without the consent of the non-assigning party.

Anti-assignment clauses are of two types:

One that prohibits the assignment of work or service pursuant to the contract.

One that prohibits the assignment of payment under the contract.

The clause that prohibits the assignment of work or service is a valid clause, completely enforceable and does not bear much importance. However, the clause that prohibits the assignment of payment is a more complex clause that affects crucial buying and selling decisions.

Are Anti-Assignment Clauses That Prohibit Assigning Payments Enforceable?

As an anti-assignment clause prohibits the assignment of payment, it affects business and thus is unenforceable and ineffective under Section 9-406 of the Uniform Commercial Code. The code clearly states that clauses pertaining to "Discharge of Account Debtor, Notification of Assignment, Identification and Proof of Assignment, Restriction on Assignment of Account, Chattel Paper, Payment Intangibles and Promissory Notes" are ineffective and void.

What Should a Factor Do If a Client's Contract Contains an Anti-Assignment Clause?

Most factors prefer not to enter into an agreement with a client whose contract contains any anti-assignment clause to avoid hassle in the future. However, legal experts suggest that factors should ignore the anti-assignment clauses in the contract and proceed with business as usual along with providing a Notice of Assignment to the account debtor.

Even if the factor decides to proceed with the business decision with the said client, he should be aware that the account debtor may not want to engage in commercial activities with the factor, and may even create difficulties in dealings and collection. Though an anti-assignment clause does not deter the factor's decision to enter into a business arrangement with an account debtor or his ability to be paid given the issuance of a Notice of Assignment, it is for him to decide if the efforts are worth the business. However, to ensure a fool-proof commercial and business dealing, the factor can obtain a signed Estoppel Letter from the account debtor to avoid all future disputes.

What Are the Anti-assignment Provisions and Their Effect on Transaction Structures?

Most commercial contracts end with a clause, ”Neither this Agreement nor any of the rights, interests or obligations under the Agreement shall be assigned, in whole or in part, by operation of law or otherwise by either party without the prior written consent of the other party.” This is the anti-assignment clause that ensures the interest of both the parties and that none of the two parties transfer any rights to any other individual with our prior consent of the other main party.

Often, a contract assignment issue plays an important factor in merger and acquisition prospects as buyers want to acquire all customer and vendor contracts. However, if any of the contracts bound by the anti-assignment clause need the approval of the other party, it could lead to additional costs for the buyer, which may affect the decision. The general notion is that most contracts are assignable unless categorically included anti-assignment clauses .

What Is the Typical Anti-assignment Language to Look Out For?

There are numerous ways of including an anti-assignment provision in the contract. However, the AIA Standard Form of Agreement contains the following anti-assignment provision:

• The Party 1 and Party 2, respectively, bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement and to the partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all covenants of this Agreement. Neither Party 1 nor Party 2 shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other.

What Are the Recommendations for Parties Entering Into Construction Contracts?

Usually, when commercial agreements are drawn, parties tend to focus on the key business aspects but pay no heed to anti-assignment provisions. It is thus the main responsibility of a corporate lawyer to study, analyze, and dissect agreements to ensure the best for their clients.

• Check the miscellaneous sections of any agreement to rule out any anti-assignment clause in the contract.
• Read and understand the finer points of the anti-assignment clause in the contract, if any.
• Negotiate changes in the anti-assignment clause prior to signing the contract.

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

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

Content Approved by UpCounsel

• Assignment Law
• Legal Assignment
• Assignment Contract Law
• Assignment of Rights and Obligations Under a Contract
• Consent to Assignment
• What Is the Definition of Assigns
• Assignment Legal Definition
• Assignment Of Contracts
• Assignment of Rights Example
• What is an Assignment and Assumption Agreement

Non-assignment clauses: what they do (and don’t) restrict

A warranty in a receivables financing contract that BP was not prohibited from disposing of the receivable was not breached by a clause in the underlying oil sale contract prohibiting assignment without the other party’s consent. The decision usefully interprets common clauses found in commercial agreements and receivables financing contracts – namely non-assignment clauses and warranties concerning ability to dispose of a receivable. Non-assignment clauses are the subject of proposed law reform that would nullify their effect in business contracts. Allen & Overy’s Global Intelligence Unit report on the proposed regulations can be read here : First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC (formerly National Bank of Abu Dhabi PJSC) v BP Oil International Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 14, 18 January 2018

BP contracted to supply oil to the Société Anonyme Marocaine de L’Industrie de Raffinage ( SAMIR ). First Abu Dhabi Bank ( FAB ) guaranteed payment for up to 95% of the sums due from SAMIR to BP, in exchange for a commission fee (the guarantee ). This was cancelled and replaced a month later by a purchase letter ( purchase letter ), under which FAB agreed to purchase BP’s economic interest in the contract with SAMIR (the Contract ) at 95% of its value. FAB advanced payment to BP, and BP was to pay to FAB all sums it received from SAMIR under the Contract. Restrictions on assignment The Contract expressly incorporated BP’s general terms and conditions for sales and purchases of crude oil, including a non-assignment provision (s34) which stated that “Neither of the parties to the Agreement shall without the previous consent in writing of the other party (which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) assign the Agreement or any rights or obligations hereunder. […] Any assignment not made in accordance with the terms of this Section shall be void.” However, the purchase letter provided that:

- BP would assign its rights under the Contract to FAB “if legally possible under applicable laws and the Contract”;

- in the event that any assignment was not able to take place or was invalid or unenforceable, FAB would be subrogated to BP’s rights under the Contract and would be entitled to a funded sub-participation in BP’s rights to receive payment from SAMIR; - any amounts paid by SAMIR to BP would be held on trust for FAB; and - BP represented and warranted that it was “not prohibited by any security, loan or other agreement, to which it is a party, from disposing of the Receivable evidenced by the Invoice as contemplated herein”. The Receivable was defined as the invoice issued by BP to SAMIR under the Contract. No consent to assignment BP had neither requested nor obtained SAMIR’s consent to the assignment to FAB as at the date of the purchase letter. SAMIR subsequently filed for insolvency in Morocco, and FAB asked BP for an assignment of its rights under the Contract. BP then informed FAB that it needed SAMIR’s consent to an assignment. FAB did not request that BP seek SAMIR’s consent, but instead commenced proceedings for damages for breach of the representation and warranty in the purchase letter. At first instance – warranty breached At first instance, Carr J found for FAB, holding that the inclusion of s34 of BP’s general terms in the Contract meant that the representation and warranty in the purchase letter was false. Court of Appeal – no breach The Court of Appeal found that there had been no breach of the representation and warranty by BP. Giving the leading judgment, Lady Justice Gloster analysed the question in three stages. What was BP prohibited from doing under s34 of its general terms and conditions? Clauses such as s34 of BP’s general terms and conditions prohibit parties from legally or equitably assigning their existing or future rights under contracts (without their counterparty’s consent). BP was therefore contractually prohibited from effecting a legal or equitable assignment of its rights under the Contract to FAB.

However, BP was not prohibited from taking the other steps contemplated by the purchase letter, including paying sums received from SAMIR to FAB, holding such sums on trust for FAB or granting FAB subrogated rights or a funded sub-participation. What was the effect of such a restriction on BP’s ability to dispose of the Receivable? Following Linden Gardens Trusts Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1994] 1 AC 85, it was common ground between the parties that the effect of s34 was that any purported legal or equitable assignment by BP of its rights under the Contract to FAB (without SAMIR’s consent) would be ineffective. Did BP breach the warranty? – No The representation and warranty had to be interpreted against the commercial context and overall scheme of the purchase letter. Assignment was not the primary method of transferring to FAB sums received by BP under the Contract; that was payment of the amounts received by BP to FAB and the imposition of a trust over those sums. Assignment was a secondary method of FAB receiving the relevant sums. Further, the clause in the purchase letter which required assignment expressly contemplated that assignment may not be possible, and provided FAB with alternative remedies such as subrogated rights or a sub-participation if assignment were impossible for any reason. The payment guarantee agreement which preceded the purchase letter also expressly provided for alternative means of transferring the economic benefit of the Contract if assignment were not possible. That it might not be possible to assign the contract therefore formed part of the factual matrix in which the purchase letter was to be construed. Against this background and in light of the other terms of the purchase letter, the phrase “from disposing of the Receivable evidenced by the Invoice as contemplated herein” in the representation and warranty did not refer exclusively to an assignment, but envisaged a wider restriction preventing the disposal by BP of its economic interest in the Contract. Section 34 of BP’s general terms and conditions did not prohibit BP from disposing of its economic interest in the Contract by all the means contemplated in the purchase letter, it only prohibited legal or equitable assignment, which the relevant terms of the purchase letter expressly contemplated may not be possible in any event. Therefore, on the proper construction of the purchase letter, BP had not breached the representation and warranty. COMMENT This case is a useful clarification of the meaning of terms, iterations of which are commonly found in receivables financing contracts. It is also interesting for what was not decided. Gloster LJ’s judgment analyses whether clauses prohibiting assignment are capable of rendering ineffective a subsequent equitable (as opposed to legal) assignment, and whether the Linden Gardens case can in fact be distinguished on this point. No finding was made as “with a considerable degree of intellectual disappointment” the question was not before the Court of Appeal. However, the space Gloster LJ devoted in her judgment to this question indicates that it is one considered ripe for review by the Supreme Court should an appropriate case arise. The commercial rationale of Linden Gardens is that it preserves the legitimate commercial purpose of non- assignment clauses by ensuring that contracting parties do not have to deal with third parties that they have not consented to deal with. Gloster LJ’s analysis argues that non-assignment clauses only need to render ineffective legal assignments to satisfy this commercial purpose, and to go further and render equitable assignments ineffective is an illegitimate constraint on the freedom of commercial parties to alienate their property. Similarly, although BP accepted in the Court of Appeal that the effect of s34 of its general terms and conditions was to prohibit it from effecting a legal or equitable assignment (accepting that the Court of Appeal was bound by two of its previous decisions on this point), it reserved its position as to the correctness of those prior decisions should the case proceed to the Supreme Court.

Latest Posts

• National Security Division Announces New Self-Disclosure Policy in M&A Transactions
• Approval of the Executive Regulations to the Egyptian Competition Law
• Employee risk considerations for private capital investors
• UK carbon border adjustment mechanism: shaping up ahead of 2027
• Integrating Sustainability: Luxembourg's Legal Advancements with the CSRD

See more »

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

Refine your interests »

Written by:

Published In:

Allen & overy llp on:.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Are Anti-Assignment Clauses Enforceable?

Written by: Brittainy Boessel

July 22, 2020

8 minute read

Contracts, in general, are freely assignable, which means that either party can transfer its contractual obligations or rights to a third party. But sometimes contracts include anti-assignment clauses to limit or prohibit assignment. Read on to discover the basics of assignment and anti-assignment clauses, what makes them unenforceable, and learn how to negotiate them.

What Is Assignment?

An assignment is like a transfer. If an agreement permits assignment, a party could assign — or transfer — its obligation to another party. The second party — the one to whom the contract was assigned — would then be required to provide the products or services.

Assignments don’t necessarily relieve liability for the party who transfers the agreement. Depending on the contract, the party who assigned its obligations may remain a guarantor of— or responsible for—the performance of the third party assigned the work. In other words, the party to the contract (the assignor) would be responsible for breaches committed by the party to which it assigned its performance (the assignee). To remove itself from the liability of the agreement, the assignor would need to seek a novation , which cancels the first contract and creates a new contract between the party that is the assignee and the original counterparty to the contract.

What is an Anti-Assignment Clause?

Anti-assignment clauses—also sometimes referred to as assignment clauses or non-assignment clauses—can appear in various forms. Essentially, they prevent one or both contracting parties from assigning some or all of their respective contractual obligations or rights to a third party.

Anti-Assignment Language to Look for in a Contract

When reading through your contract, you can typically find a separate paragraph entitled “Assignment,” “Non-assignment,” or “Anti-assignment.” Sometimes you’ll find the assignment language buried within a “Miscellaneous Provisions” section, which contains all the boilerplate language of a contract, such as severability and waiver provisions.

Contracts include two primary types of anti-assignment clauses. The first type categorically precludes all assignments of rights and duties. It usually reads something like this: “Neither Party may assign, delegate, or transfer this agreement or any of its rights or obligations under this agreement.”

The second type prohibits assignments unless the assigning party obtains the prior written consent of the other party. It usually reads something like this: “Neither this agreement nor any right, interest, or obligation herein may be assigned, transferred, or delegated to a third party without the prior written permission of the other party, and whose consent may be withheld for any reason.”

Some clauses may state that a change of control, such as a merger, consolidation, or acquisition, is considered an assignment. Read carefully , because you want to ensure that you won’t be in breach if you transfer the contract to an affiliate.

Additionally, check the termination section of your agreement. Some termination clauses may state that a non-assigning party may terminate the contract in the event of a non-permitted assignment. Or a termination clause may state that the agreement automatically terminates upon such a transfer.

Without an anti-assignment provision, contracts are generally assignable even absent the consent of the counterparty. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), a group of laws governing the sale of goods, prefers the free transferability of all types of property, including contracts.

Still, courts normally enforce anti-assignment clauses that are negotiated and agreed upon by both parties, depending on the applicable law, the jurisdiction governing the contract, and the language agreed upon in the contract. Be aware though that courts tend to narrowly interpret anti-assignment clauses. For instance, an anti-assignment clause may prohibit assignment but fail to state that an assignment in violation of the contract will be invalid. In this case, a party may be able to file a suit for breach of contract, but the court may not permit it to invalidate the assignment.

Even without a solid anti-assignment clause, there may still be an opportunity to prevent certain assignments. Courts may not enforce assignments to which the counterparty did not consent, even in the absence of a valid anti-assignment clause, especially if the contract is personal in nature. Some obligations can be performed equally well by a third party, such as a requirement to make payments. But a personal obligation involves a special relationship between parties or requires special levels of expertise, discretion, or reputation. For example, personal service contracts, including employment agreements, are personal enough in nature that they’re not transferable unless the non-transferring party consents.

In general, assignment is not enforceable when:

• The contract prohibits and voids assignment

As discussed above, contract provisions can prohibit and void an assignment.

• The assignment materially changes the contract

If the assignment would significantly impact the performance of the contract — for instance, if it greatly increases the risks or burden imposed on the other party — then a court would likely not enforce the assignment.

• The assignment violates the law

Certain laws prevent assignments. For example, some states legislate that an employee cannot assign its future wages to a third party.

• The assignment violates public policy

If the assignment would harm public policy interests, it will be void. For instance, victims may not assign their personal injury claims to third parties to discourage excessive litigation.

Negotiating Anti-Assignment Clauses

In certain situations, the inclusion of an anti-assignment clause may not be in a party’s best interests. If a party depends on a unique service provider or a specific person to perform, then it must make sure that that service provider or person can’t assign work to an unknown third party without its consent. For instance, if you pay a premium to hire a renowned jazz band to perform at your charity gala, you don’t want a local high school garage band to show up instead. In any situation involving unique services or providers, make sure you have the right to consent prior to any assignment under the agreement.

Another example of the importance of assignability is in mergers and acquisitions. When a company purchases another business, the acquired business’s existing customer base and supplier contracts make it more valuable . Consequently, if a party hopes to eventually sell its business, it would want the right to assign its existing contracts to the buyer. Otherwise, potential buyers may be scared off because of the time and money it will take to transfer the existing agreements. Plus, the existence of anti-assignment clauses may heavily impact the selling price. If it’s possible you may sell your business, ensure that you have the right to assign your contracts and that consent is not solely within the discretion of the counterparty.

If you want the right to assign the contract, but your agreement does not permit assignments, you’ll need to negotiate with your counterparty on this point. If the clause in your agreement prohibits all assignments, try to include a carve out by allowing assignment of your rights and obligations upon the prior written consent of the other party. Add that the counterparty shall not unreasonably withhold or delay consent. You may also want to carve out an exception to the anti-assignment clause by excluding assignments between affiliates or necessitated by change of control transactions, such as mergers or acquisitions.

Courts tend to construe anti-assignment and anti-delegation clauses narrowly. As mentioned, a number of courts have held that an anti-assignment clause does not remove the power of a party to assign the contract and invalidate the contract unless the provision explicitly states that such assignments will be invalid or void. Thus, if you want to make an assignment that violates your agreement, rather than creating an opportunity for a breach of contract case, explicitly state in your contract that such assignments are invalid or void.

If you don’t want the counterparty to be able to assign its rights or obligations, state your preference clearly in your agreement with one of these options.

• Require consent always

Include a clause such as, “Neither party may assign or delegate this agreement or its rights or obligations under this agreement without the prior written consent of the other party, and any assignment or delegation that violates this provision shall be void.”

• Don’t require consent for affiliates or successors

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

• Require consent to be given reasonably

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

Note that you will not be able to prevent assignments resulting from court orders or by operation of law, such as those ordered through a bankruptcy hearing.

When you enter a contractual relationship, make sure to clearly determine your rights and obligations, as well as those of the other party. If it may be important for your business to have the right to assign all or parts of the contract, negotiate for the removal of the anti-assignment clause, or request changes to it to provide sufficient flexibility for you to assign.

Learn how to tackle Due Diligence projects more efficiently and free up your (and your associates’) time more effectively!

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

• Practical Law

Contract: non-assignment clause

Practical law uk legal update 0-380-4831  (approx. 5 pages).

• General Contract and Boilerplate
• Collateral Warranties and Third Parties

• Assignment Clause

Get free proposals from vetted lawyers in our marketplace.

Contract Clauses

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

Jump to Section

Assignment clause defined.

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

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

Here’s an article about assignment clauses.

Assignment Clause Explained

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

Here’s another article about assignment clauses.

Purpose of Assignment Clause

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

Assignment Clause Examples

Examples of assignment clauses include:

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

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

Assignment Clause Samples

Sample 1 – sales contract.

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

Reference :

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

Sample 2 – Purchase and Sale Agreement

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

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

Sample 3 – Share Purchase Agreement

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

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

Sample 4 – Asset Purchase Agreement

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

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

Sample 5 – Asset Purchase Agreement

Assignment; Binding Effect; Severability

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

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

Common Contracts with Assignment Clauses

Common contracts with assignment clauses include:

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

Assignment Clause FAQs

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

What is an assignment clause in real estate?

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

What does no assignment clause mean?

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

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

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

Jeremiah C.

Meet some of our Lawyers

George Oggero is a down-to-earth lawyer who understands that his clients are human beings. He is a lifelong Houston resident. He graduated from St. Thomas High School and then Texas A&M University. He obtained his Doctor of Jurisprudence from South Texas College of Law in 2007. He is experienced in real estate, criminal defense, civil/commercial matters, personal, injury, business matters, general counsel on-demand, and litigation.

My clients are often small and medium size technology companies, from the "idea" stage to clients who may have raised a round or three of capital and need to clean up a messy cap table. I help with all legal matters related to growth that keep founders up at night - hiring people, allocating equity, dealing with shareholders and investors, client negotiations and early litigation counseling (before you need a litigator). I've seen a lot, and because I run my own business, I understand the concerns that keep you up at night. I’ve been through, both on my own and through other clients, the “teething” pains that will inevitably arise as you scale-up – and I’m here to help you. I have over 20 years international experience devising and implementing robust corporate legal strategies and governance for large multinationals. I now focus on start-ups and early/medium stage technology companies to enable a sound legal foundation for your successful business operations. Many of my clients are international with US based holding companies or presences. My 17 years abroad helps me "translate" between different regimes and even enabling Civil and Common Law lawyers to come together. Regularly, I handle early stage financings including Convertible Notes, Seed and Series A/B financings; commercial and technology contracts; international transactions; tax; mergers and acquisitions.

Michael has extensive experience advising companies from start-ups to established publicly-traded companies . He has represented businesses in a wide array of fields IT consulting, software solutions, web design/ development, financial services, SaaS, data storage, and others. Areas of expertise include contract drafting and negotiation, terms of use, business structuring and funding, company and employee policies, general transactional issues as well as licensing and regulatory compliance. His prior experience before entering private practice includes negotiating sales contracts for a Fortune 500 healthcare company, as well as regulatory compliance contracts for a publicly traded dental manufacturer. Mr. Brennan firmly believes that every business deserves a lawyer that is both responsive and dependable, and he strives to provide that type of service to every client.

Thomas Codevilla is Partner at SK&S Law Group where he focuses on Data Privacy, Security, Commercial Contracts, Corporate Finance, and Intellectual Property. Read more at Skandslegal.com Thomas’s clients range from startups to large enterprises. He specializes in working with businesses to build risk-based data privacy and security systems from the ground up. He has deep experience in GDPR, CCPA, COPPA, FERPA, CALOPPA, and other state privacy laws. He holds the CIPP/US and CIPP/E designations from the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Alongside his privacy practice he brings a decade of public and private transactional experience, including formations, financings, M&A, corporate governance, securities, intellectual property licensing, manufacturing, regulatory compliance, international distribution, China contracts, and software-as-a-service agreements.

Attorney of 6 years with experience evaluating and drafting contracts, formation document, and policies and procedures in multiple industries. Expanded to estate planning last year.

Dani is a trusted legal professional with expertise in contracts and corporate legal operations. Dani supports customers in reviewing and negotiating both buy and sell side agreements, including but not limited to Master Services Agreements, Licensing Agreements, SaaS Agreements, Supply Agreements, Commercial Contracts, Healthcare Contracts, IT Contracts, Vendor Contracts and Non-Disclosure Agreements. She also assists with negotiation strategy, contract lifecycle, privacy issues, legal policy setting, process improvement, corporate governance, force majeure clauses and template harmonization and playbook development. Dani has proven success drafting, negotiating and advising executive leadership on contracts to drive outcomes in line with defined strategic objectives. Dani is based in Georgia and holds a law degree from Western Michigan University’s Cooley Law School.

Find the best lawyer for your project

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

CONTRACT lawyers by city

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

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

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

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

How It Works

Post Your Project

Get Free Bids to Compare

Hire Your Lawyer

Find lawyers and attorneys by city

No assignment or delegation

No assignment or delegation clause samples

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

09/10/2020 (Chelsea Worldwide Inc.)

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

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

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

06/06/2016 (Ottawa Bancorp Inc)

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

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

Cut contract prep time in half for free

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

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

Partner, Siskind Susser PC

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

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

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

Latin America

Mexico +52 55 5985 3005

Brazil +55 21 4040 4623

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

© NetDocuments Software, Inc.

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

Case review: non-assignment clauses and transferring the right to arbitrate by operation of law (Court of Appeal decision)

Global |  Publication |  January 2024

Introduction

Factual background, the high court’s decision, the court of appeal’s decision, key takeaways.

Does a non-assignment clause that prohibits assignments “by any party to any third party, for any reason whatsoever” prevent an assignment (akin to subrogation) to an insurer where such assignment takes effect by operation of law? The Court of Appeal had to consider this question in the recent case of Dassault [2024] EWCA Civ 5 . 

Overturning the High Court’s decision, the Court of Appeal found that the assignment in question did not fall foul of the non-assignment clause as the assignment had not been effected “by” a party because the transfer had occurred by operation of law. That being said, the judgment does not establish a general principle as to the relationship between non-assignment clauses and assignments arising by operation of law; rather the Court of Appeal’s decision was heavily focussed on the interpretation and the wording of the non-assignment clause in the contract.

Dassault Aviation SA (“ Dassault ”) had entered into an English law sale contract with Mitsui Bussan Aerospace Co., Ltd (“ MBA ”) for the sale of two maritime surveillance aircraft (the “ Sale Contract ”). MBA had agreed to onward sell those aircraft to the Japanese Coast Guard pursuant to a Japanese law governed contract (the “ Sub-Sale Contract ”). 

The Sub-Sale Contract provided for liquidated damages in case of delayed delivery of the aircraft to the Japanese Coast Guard. MBA had entered into a Japanese law contract of insurance with its insurer (the “ Insurer ”) to insure the risk of MBA being held liable to the Japanese Coast Guard for such late delivery (the “ Insurance Contract ”). 

The aircraft were delivered late by Dassault to MBA, which led to a consequent late delivery of the aircraft by MBA to the Japanese Coast Guard. MBA was therefore liable to pay liquidated damages to the Japanese Coast Guard under the Sub-Sale Contract. Following the payment of such damages, MBA claimed against the Insurer under the Insurance Contract and the Insurer paid out the insured amount to MBA. 

Under Japanese law (the law of the Insurance Contract), when an insurer pays out an insurance claim it is automatically assigned, by operation of statutory law, the assured’s rights of recovery against third parties in respect of that claim. Having been assigned MBA’s rights, the Insurer accordingly commenced (in its own name) ICC proceedings against Dassault, pursuant to the arbitration agreement found in the Sale Contract. 

Dassault challenged the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the Insurer’s claim. It argued that the assignment to the Insurer was in breach of the non-assignment clause found in the Sale Contract, and that as a result the assignment was null and void. Accordingly, the Insurer was not entitled to rely on the arbitration agreement to bring its claim and the Tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction. In response, the Insurer contended that the non-assignment clause did not on its proper construction apply to an assignment effected by operation of law. Since the Insurer’s rights arose by operation of law, the Insurer contended that it was not an assignment caught by the non-assignment clause. 

The Tribunal considered the jurisdictional issue as a preliminary issue and the majority (Lord Collins of Mapesbury and Joe Smouha KC) found in the Insurer’s favour (Mr Crookdenden KC dissenting). Dassault challenged the Tribunal’s decision pursuant to section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, bringing proceedings before the High Court. 

The High Court found in Dassault’s favour and ruled that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the Insurer’s claim. Mrs Justice Cockerill (the “ Judge ”) reached this decision by considering the two following issues: 

• Was there a general rule/presumption under English law that transfers “by operation of law” would not fall foul of a prohibition on assignment clause (the “ First Issue ”)?
• If there was no such rule, as a matter of interpretation of the Sale Contract, did the non-assignment clause prohibit the assignment of MBA’s rights to the Insurer, notwithstanding this was an assignment to an insurer akin to subrogation (the “ Second Issue ”)?

On the First Issue, the Judge took the view that the caselaw did not support the proposition that an assignment by “operation of law” would be outside the scope of a non-assignment clause. Instead, the Judge noted that the authorities (mainly old insolvency cases) supported a narrower distinction between transfers which can be said to be willing/voluntary (in the sense of consented to/ within the control of the transferor) and those which were truly unwilling/involuntary. On that basis, the Judge considered that a non-assignment clause could apply to an assignment with the sufficient “taint of voluntariness”. 

Turning to the Second Issue, the Judge noted that an iterative process of interpretation had to be followed that gave due weight to the words and commercial purpose of the non-assignment clause, as well as the factual matrix and commercial common sense. The Judge noted that the wording of the non-assignment clause was intentionally broad with the only limitation imposed being the following words which required the assignment to be: “ by any party to any third party” (emphasis added). That wording, the Judge reasoned, invited one to consider the cause of the assignment rather than the mechanism by which it took place – this, the Judge said, was in line with the approach outlined by the authorities. 

Since MBA had, amongst other things, chosen of its own volition to take out insurance, to do so under a system of non-English law which provided for assignment instead of subrogation, and to make a claim under that insurance, the Judge concluded that MBA had voluntarily caused the assignment, thereby falling provisionally within the scope of the wording of the non-assignment clause. 

The Judge then considered the context/commercial purpose indications. Whilst accepting the logic of the Insurer’s argument – that if an English subrogation is not caught by a non-assignment clause then it is inherently unlikely that the parties intended for the subrogation-equivalent of another legal system to be caught by such clause (not least because the only difference would be the name of the claimant on the arbitration documents) – she ultimately concluded that the context/commercial purpose indications were not weighty enough to displace the position indicated by a consideration of the words. 

The Judge accordingly held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the Insurer’s claim, but did so with an “unusual degree of hesitation”. The Insurer appealed the Judge’s findings on both issues.

Overturning the Judge’s decision, the Court of Appeal (consisting of Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Coulson, and Lord Justice Phillips) unanimously held that the Tribunal did have jurisdiction to hear the Insurer’s claim. 

On the First Issue, following a close consideration of the authorities, the Court found that “the old insolvency cases d[id] not enunciate a general principle applicable to the interpretation of non-assignment clauses in commercial contracts.” Those cases simply turned on the nature of the insolvency under which the transfer in question took place. 

Turning to the Second Issue, that of interpretation, the Court noted that the words of the non-assignment clause were clear and unambiguous. The key words that had to be considered were the words: “by any party”. The Court of Appeal rejected the causal analysis taken by the High Court and Dassault, and noted that “[t]he correct question was whether the transfer was made by MBA, not whether the transfer was caused as a consequence of certain actions taken by MBA.” 

The Court of Appeal found that the non-assignment clause therefore prevented any assignment which was effected by a party to the sale contract, but not a transfer that was effected by operation of law. As it was common ground between the parties (and had been unanimously decided by the Tribunal) that MBA’s claims against Dassault had been assigned to the Insurer pursuant to Japanese statutory law, that was an assignment by operation of law and not within the scope of the non-assignment clause. 

The Court of Appeal considered that the meaning of the non-assignment clause was clear and unambiguous and that the High Court had erred in thinking that there were two possible meanings to the non-assignment clause. As such, it was not “necessary to consider whether the commercial matrix of fact points in favour of one of two possible meanings of [the clause]”, but the Court did note in obiter that it was “far from clear” that the non-assignment clause was intended to “catch transfers arising from insurance payouts, by whatever law those insurance contracts might be governed”. 

The Court of Appeal accordingly allowed the appeal and reinstated the Tribunal’s award. 

Dassault has sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Court of Appeal’s decision should bring some comfort to insurers that an assignment to an insurer by operation of law is unlikely to fall foul of a prohibition on assignment clause. However, the Court did not go so far as to say that there is a general principle to that effect. Parties will therefore be well advised to closely scrutinise any non-assignment clauses and to ensure that they have been drafted in as clear terms as possible (given the Court of Appeal’s emphasis on the interpretation and wording of the individual clause).

Where the parties envisage insurance being taken out, an express carve out, if possible, should be provided in the non-assignment clause in favour of insurers. Furthermore, when insuring under a non-English law and seeking to rely on subrogation or analogous rights, parties should make enquiries as to the mechanism of transfer under that non-English law to ensure it does not fall foul of any non-assignment/transfer clause. 

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal’s rejection of the Judge’s causal analysis (voluntary vs involuntary) and its application to non-assignment clauses in commercial contracts is welcomed as it avoids an approach that would be replete with practical difficulties.  

The Appellant was represented by Zayba Drabu, Cloudesley Long, and Yiannis Charalambous of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP together with Chris Smith KC and Benjamin Joseph of Quadrant Chambers.

Back to Legalflyer

Practice area:

Recent publications

Publication

Medicaid Managed Care Final rule: Long-awaited pronouncement on permitted uses of state directed payments

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued its long-awaited Medicaid Managed Care final rule governing Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program managed care access, finance, and quality.

United States | April 26, 2024

International Restructuring Newswire

Welcome to the Q2 2024 edition of the Norton Rose Fulbright International Restructuring Newswire.

Global | Q2 2024

Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. decision has little import for municipal securities

On April 12, 2024, in the Macquarie decision, SCOTUS unanimously ruled that a pure omission does not provide the basis for a securities fraud claim.

United States | April 23, 2024

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .

© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023

• Canada (English)
• Canada (Français)
• United States
• Deutschland (Deutsch)
• Germany (English)
• The Netherlands
• Türkiye
• United Kingdom
• South Africa
• Hong Kong SAR
• Marshall Islands
• Nordic region

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

Non-Assignability Contract Clauses (384)

Grouped into 15 collections of similar clauses from business contracts.

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

• news and insights
• European finance litigation review

Northern Europe

New interpretation of non-assignment clauses relevant for securitisation and factoring.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Xing
• Print Print

Supreme Court 21 March 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:682 (Coface/Intergamma)

On 21 March 2014, the Supreme Court ruled that a breach of a non-assignment clause results in a breach of contract, but is unlikely to affect the valid transfer (and pledge) of the assigned rights.

The judgement is relevant to parties involved in various types of financing, such as securitisations, factoring and reverse factoring, in which the assignment of rights is an essential requirement. Rights governed by Dutch law subject to a non-assignment clause were traditionally considered unsuitable for these types of financing. This judgement challenges that traditional thinking. The judgement has the potential to significantly expand the number of claims that are suitable for securitisations, factoring and reverse factoring.

Since 2005, Intergamma had been purchasing electronics from the AFK group on Intergamma's general terms and conditions of purchase. The non-assignment clause in these terms and conditions prohibited the vendor (AFK Group) from transferring all or part of its rights and obligations to third parties without Intergamma's prior written consent. In violation of that prohibition, AFK Germany, the entity in the AFK group to which Intergamma made payments, assigned its claims against Intergamma to Coface in 2008 under a factoring agreement without seeking Intergamma's consent.

When Intergamma made payments early in 2009 to AFK Holland, another part of the AFK group, Coface invoked the assignment and asserted that the payments to AFK Holland did not release Intergamma from its payment obligations. Intergamma refused to pay Coface, and relied on the non-assignment clause which, according to Intergamma, meant that the assignment of AFK Germany's claims to Coface in 2008 was void.

Interpretation of the non-assignment clause: presumption that it only affects contracting parties

The key issue before the court was the effect of the non-assignment clause. Did it have the effect of invalidating the entire transfer of rights to Coface (ie did it have proprietary effect)? Or did it merely mean that AFK Germany was in breach of contract, but that the rights remained with Coface (ie that the clause had only contractual effect)?

The Supreme Court ruled that, in principle, there is a presumption that a non-assignment clause only takes effect under the law of obligations:

" A clause like the one at issue, which is also intended by its nature to affect the legal position of third parties that have no knowledge of the intention of the contracting parties, and which serves to uniformly govern their legal position, must be construed according to objective standards, with due observance of the Haviltex standard. 1

The point of departure when interpreting clauses that exclude assignment of a claim must be that they only have effect under the law of obligations, unless their wording - construed according to objective standards – indicates that they were also intended to have effect under the law of property as referred to in Article 3:83, paragraph 2, of the Dutch Civil Code. "

The case will now be referred back to the Hague Court of Appeal for it to decide whether the non-assignment clause in Intergamma's general terms and conditions was intended to have effect only under the law of obligations, or to have proprietry effect too.

Implications

A non-assignment clause which prohibits a party from assigning its rights (eg "the Seller shall not assign its rights") will, if breached, generally result in a breach of contract but will not affect the assignee's rights. The rights subjected to the clause are still transferred. Should a proprietary effect, ie actual non-transferability, be required, the non-assignment clause will need to explicitly state this (eg "The rights under this agreement are non-transferable").

The Supreme Court's ruling places increased emphasis on the precise wording of a non-assignment clause. Obligors who want a non-assignment clause to have absolute effect vis-à-vis third parties and contracting parties should review their contracts or general terms and conditions and make changes if necessary. The text must either explicitly state that an assignment prohibition has effect under the law of property. A clause must state that the claim itself cannot be transferred.

The ruling also affects finance parties. Before this judgment, it was generally assumed that every non-assignment clause took effect under the law of property unless the text of the clause contained indications that the prohibition only had consequences under the law of obligations. This judgment suggests the opposite, thus potentially widening the pool of rights suitable for securitisations, factoring etc.

Under Dutch law, if there is a dispute about the meaning of a contract provision, a Dutch court will ascertain this meaning by applying the following standard: what could the parties reasonably have understood that provision to mean and what could they reasonably have expected from each other? For this "Haviltex standard", all facts and circumstances are relevant, including the conduct of the parties before and after entering into the contract. For more information, please see our article "Plain Meaning of the Words Not Always Determinative for Commercial Contracts" in the EFLR of June 2013.

• Central & Eastern Europe
• EU developments
• Southern Europe
• Western Europe