Assignment by way of security: Difference between revisions

Unless it is “by way of security” in name only — don’t ask, but if you must, see the footnote<ref>An [[assignment by way of security]] ''could'' be a legal assignment, if it meets the formal criteria, but one of those is that the assignment is absolute and not by way of security only, so — yeah. And there is authority about this, by the way: {{cite|Mailbox (Birmingham) Limited|Galliford Try Construction Limited|2017|EWHC|67}}. </ref> — an [[assignment by way of security]], usually, does not meet all the formal requirements for a [[legal assignment]] set out in the [[Law of Property Act 1925|Law of Property Act]]. So it’s not as good. Being, therefore, an [[equitable assignment|''equitable'' assignment]] and not a [[legal assignment|''legal'' assignment]], there differences relating to how an assignee enforces its claim against contracting party: a legal assignee can sue in its own name; and equitable assignee only by joining the assignor to the action (I know: shoot me, right?).