Legal assignment: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) 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..." |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In a game of [[legal contract top trumps]] a [[legal assignment]] beats an [[equitable assignment]], | {{anat|security}} | ||
In a game of [[legal contract top trumps]], a [[legal assignment]] beats an [[equitable assignment]], except in the “fewest formalities needed to work” category, because it must meet certain formalities set out in the [[Law of Property Act 1925]]: | |||
*it must be absolute (unconditional). | *it must be absolute (unconditional). | ||
*it mustr not not be by way of [[charge]] or security only: an assignment by way of security cannot be 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]]. |
Revision as of 15:39, 8 March 2018
A word about credit risk mitigation
{{{2}}}
|
In a game of legal contract top trumps, a legal assignment beats an equitable assignment, except in the “fewest formalities needed to work” category, because it must meet certain formalities set out in the Law of Property Act 1925:
- it must be absolute (unconditional).
- it mustr not not be by way of charge or security only: an assignment by way of security cannot be a legal assignment.
- The rights assigned must be wholly ascertainable and must relate to the whole of the chose in action.
- It must be in writing and signed - no deemed acceptance by conduct here, friend.
- The party whose obligations are being assigned must be given notice of the assignment.