what is a no 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

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 .

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

Rethinking the “No Assignment” Provision

27 November 2023 20 November 2012 | Ken Adams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Pingback: Koncision » Quora as a Source of Misinformation

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

Assignment and Delegation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

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

The voice that matters.

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

164 Brompton Road Garden City, NY 11530-1432

(516) 318-6956

[email protected]

© 2024 Kenneth A. Adams

What Is an Assignment Clause?

An assignment clause spells out which contractual obligations, rights, and duties may be transferred from one of the contractual parties to another party. 3 min read updated on February 01, 2023

Updated October 29, 2020:

An assignment clause spells out which contractual obligations, rights, and duties may be transferred from one of the contractual parties to another party. The assignment may be in whole or in part, and the clause also details the conditions under which a party can assign these duties.

U.S. law dictates that most contractual rights can be freely assigned or delegated, unless an agreement states otherwise.

The assignment clause often overlaps with two other clauses:

• Parties in Interest
• Successors and Assigns

These control who assumes contractual rights and obligations.

Legal Background and Freely Assignable Rights

When one party in a contract “assigns” the agreement to someone else, this means the first party — the assignor — transfers its contractual rights and obligations to the second party — the assignee.

In some instances, one party will not want the other contractual party to freely assign its duties. Contracts will then include language that states this.

One exception to the general assignability rule is intellectual property licenses . Legally, a licensor must first give consent before an IP licensee can assign or delegate its rights or obligations, even in the case where the license agreement is silent.

Requirements for Assignment Consent

There are different ways to say the same thing in a contract. Some people prefer lengthier statements, and others like to keep things brief. The following are various ways to make the same points.

• One contractual party isn't allowed to assign its agreement to another person without prior written consent of the other contractual party, except as provided for in the contract. If an assignment is made without this consent, it won't be considered valid.
• One party may not assign any interest or right arising out of this contract — in whole or in part — without prior consent.
• To keep all doubts at bay, no consent is required for an assignment — including collateral, absolute, or other — for a contractual right to payment.

These are the takeaways from these stipulations:

• This type of requirement for an assignment clause can create obstacles for the non-assigning party in corporate reorganizations or future mergers.
• The party that's being asked to consent to an assignment clause requirement may want to negotiate its position. For instance, it may find negotiations helpful in a situation when the assignment involves a substantial sale.

A Party May Not Unreasonably Withhold or Delay Consent

It's not permissible to hold up consent to unreasonable delays.

Other ways to state this include:

• To avoid doubt, a party that suffers damage due to the unreasonable delay or withholding of consent by the other party can treat them as direct damages.
• To avoid doubt, damages that arise to one party from the unreasonable delay or withholding of consent by the other party aren't excluded from remedies.

Even when these provisions aren't in place, the law may still impose a reasonableness requirement. This requirement may not hold a lot of practical value, whether it's implied by the law or contractual. A reasonableness requirement can't guarantee that the non-assigning party will give consent when the assigning party wants it. By the time a case has worked its way through the court system to a decision, the deal that the assigning party was working on could have fallen through or otherwise be negated or moot.

However, this provision for unreasonable withholding should get the non-assigning party to carefully consider taking too much time due to the prospect of being held liable for damages. This can result in costly consequences.

On the other hand, having an unreasonable delay provision could create conflict with the provision concerning material breach of contract.

When you enter into a contract, it's important that you know what your rights and obligations are, as well as the other party's rights and obligations. If you don't want certain outcomes — assignment of duties, for instance — you must usually make it clear in the agreement. Getting help from a legal professional in the contract law field is a good idea when writing up a contract . That way, you increase the chances of covering everything you want covered, from the finer points to the bigger ones.

If you need help with contracts, 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

• Legal Assignment
• Assignment Law
• Consent to Assignment
• Assignment of Rights and Obligations Under a Contract
• Assignment of Rights Example
• Assignment Contract Law
• Assignability Of Contracts
• What Is the Definition of Assigns
• Assignment Legal Definition
• Delegation vs Assignment

• 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

What is an Assignment Clause?

Jennifer Tsai • January 12, 2023 • 8 minute read

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

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

Why Do Assignment Clauses Matter?

How do you review assignment clauses in contracts.

After locating all the assignment language in each agreement, the following variables should be noted as part of the review: (1) Scope of assignment provision, (2) Consequences of failure to obtain consent, (3) Standard for refusing consent, and (4) Differences among counterparties in rights to assign.

1. Scope. Assignment provisions may provide exclusions or inclusions to a counterparty’s right to approve an assignment of a contract. See the examples in the following section below.

2. Consequences of Failure to Obtain Consent. Assignment provisions may specify that, if one party attempts to assign the agreement without the required consent of the counterparty:

• The purported assignment is null and void; and/or
• The applicable contract is void and terminated.

Contracts should be carefully reviewed to determine which of the foregoing scenarios may apply.

3. Standard for Refusing Consent. Assignment provisions frequently include limitations stating that any counterparty’s consent that is required shall not be “unreasonably withheld,” although the reasonableness standard is rarely defined more specifically in the contract.

In an M&A context, the effect of this language is that it provides a target company with some opportunity to challenge a counterparty that withholds its consent to an assignment. Winning this challenge is far from guaranteed, and this opportunity generally comes at a cost of time and expense since it usually involves a legal challenge to the counterparty’s refusal to grant a consent. Consequently, a target company is incentivized to undertake this challenge only when the applicable contract is material to its post-acquisition business or to the consummation of its proposed transaction. Still, undertaking such a challenge may buy the target company time and provide it with some negotiating leverage in seeking a reversal of a counterparty’s refusal to consent to an assignment.

Determining whether consent has been unreasonably withheld is specific to the facts and circumstances underlying each request for consent. For example, in Athar v. Hudson Serv. Mgmt., Inc., 853 N.Y.S.2d 170 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008), a New York appellate court held that this standard requires the non-consenting party to show some reasonable and objective basis for withholding consent. The withholding of consent cannot be arbitrary or based on unique and personal preferences of the non-consenting party. Generally, the burden of proof to show an unreasonable withholding of consent is on the party requesting consent. Also, the party requesting consent is responsible for providing all information required or necessary to determine whether consent should be granted.

4. Differences Among Counterparties in Rights to Assign. It is important to note any differences in assignment rights between and among contracting parties and the consequences of those differences, as parties with greater negotiating power often have broader assignment rights. These differences can become important if there is a lag of time between signing and closing an M&A transaction. If a target company is required to obtain consent in order to assign an agreement, but the counterparty has rights to freely assign, care should be taken to ensure that any consent granted to a target company to assign a contract does not become subject to review or alteration by any parties to whom the counterparty may freely assign its rights after it has granted its consent to assignment. This is particularly relevant to consents that may lapse or lose their effectiveness if transactions do not close within a certain period of time. For example, if (i) a landlord or licensor subsequently transfers the contract after granting its initial consent, and (ii) such consent lapses pursuant to its terms, the target company might have to re-submit consent requests to completely different parties.

Software that uses AI to identify and extract Assignment clauses can accelerate the work of finding these clauses, and enables a more comprehensive review than can otherwise be done manually.

Examples of Common Exclusions and Inclusions in Assignment Clauses

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

Exclusion for Change of Control Transactions

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

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

Exclusion for Affiliate Transactions

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

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

Assignment by Operation of Law

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

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

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

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

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

Direct or Indirect Assignment

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

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

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

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

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

Share this article:

Learn about more clauses

Contract Central

What is an Automatic Renewal Clause?

An automatic renewal clause is a contractual provision that automatically extends the term for a specified period of time.

What is an Arbitration Clause?

An arbitration clause is a contractual provision that establishes arbitration as a mechanism for resolving contract-related disputes.

• Practical Law

If a contract is silent on assignment does the law imply that the assignment can only take place with consent?

Practical law resource id a-014-2191  (approx. 3 pages).

• General Contract and Boilerplate
• United Kingdom

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

Calling all tipsters: The DOJ’s Pilot Program on Voluntary Self-Disclosures for Individuals

The DOJ Criminal Division’s Pilot Program on Voluntary Self-Disclosure for Individuals aims to encourage individuals with potential criminal exposure to voluntarily disclose corporate criminal conduct in exchange for discretionary grants of immunity.

United States | April 22, 2024

US Supreme Court clarifies scope of liability for omissions under Rule 10b-5(b)

The US Supreme Court has ruled that a “pure omission” under Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S–K cannot give rise to a private action for securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

United States | April 18, 2024

What M&A trends will transform the 2024 insurance landscape?

It is widely accepted that 2023 was one of the worst years in recent memory for M&A activity.

Global | April 18, 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