Legal assignment: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Created page with "In a game of legal contract top trumps a legal assignment beats an equitable assignment, but must meet certain formalities set out in the Law of Property Act 192..."
 
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
In a game of [[legal contract top trumps]] a [[legal assignment]] beats an [[equitable assignment]], but must meet certain formalities set out in the [[Law of Property Act 1925]]. :
{{anat|security|}}{{g}}In a game of [[legal contract top trumps]], a [[legal assignment]] ''marginally'' beats an [[equitable assignment]], except in the “fewest formalities needed to work” category, because it must meet certain formalities set out in [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/136 Section 136] of the [[Law of Property Act 1925]]:
 
*'''Unconditional''': it must be absolute (unconditional).
*it must be absolute (unconditional).
*'''Not by way of security''': it must not not be by way of [[charge]] or security only: an [[assignment by way of security]] is an [[equitable assignment|equitable]] and not a [[legal assignment]].
*it mustr not not be by way of [[charge]] or security only: an assignment by way of security cannot be a [[legal assignment]].
*'''Wholly ascertainable''': The rights assigned must be wholly ascertainable and must relate to the whole of the [[chose in action]].  This sounds meaningful and might get you 6 out of 10 in a law exam but God only knows what it means in practice.
*The rights assigned must be wholly ascertainable and must relate to the whole of the [[chose in action]].
*'''Written''': It must be in writing and signed no [[deem|deemed]] acceptance by conduct here, friend.
*It must be in writing and signed - no deemed acceptance by conduct here, friend.
*'''On notice''': The party whose obligations are being assigned must be given notice of the assignment.
*The party whose obligations are being assigned must be given notice of the assignment.
But other than having a right to sue in your own name, it is hard to see the practical advantage of a [[legal assignment]] over an [[Equitable assignment|equitable]] one.
{{sa}}
*[[Assignment by way of security]]
*[[Chose in action]]

Latest revision as of 17:52, 11 November 2019

A word about credit risk mitigation
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.
The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™
Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

In a game of legal contract top trumps, a legal assignment marginally beats an equitable assignment, except in the “fewest formalities needed to work” category, because it must meet certain formalities set out in Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925:

  • Unconditional: it must be absolute (unconditional).
  • Not by way of security: it must not not be by way of charge or security only: an assignment by way of security is an equitable and not a legal assignment.
  • Wholly ascertainable: The rights assigned must be wholly ascertainable and must relate to the whole of the chose in action. This sounds meaningful and might get you 6 out of 10 in a law exam but God only knows what it means in practice.
  • Written: It must be in writing and signed — no deemed acceptance by conduct here, friend.
  • On notice: The party whose obligations are being assigned must be given notice of the assignment.

But other than having a right to sue in your own name, it is hard to see the practical advantage of a legal assignment over an equitable one.

See also