Opinion ID: 510320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Assignment Provision

Text: 39 On appeal, Bond, Four Seasons and Barlow contend that the trial court erred in refusing to dismiss USI's claims arising out of the 1973 sale of FEK to HI on the ground that USI did not have proper standing to assert the claims. 12 According to these defendants, the 1973 Purchase Agreement prohibited HI from assigning its rights under and in connection with the 1973 Agreement without the express written consent of FEA. 13 HI neither sought nor received FEA's written consent to assign its claims to USI. Therefore, the attempted assignment of HI's claims to USI was ineffectual, USI lacked standing to assert HI's claims, and the trial court erred in not dismissing them. 40 We cannot agree. A contract term prohibiting assignment of rights under the contract, unless a different intention is manifested, does not forbid assignment of a right to money damages for breach of the contract. Restatement (Second) of Contracts Sec. 322(2)(b)(1981). 14 See also Fuller v. Favorite Theaters Co. of Salt Lake, 119 Utah 570, 230 P.2d 335, 336 (1951); Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335, 182 P.2d 182, 185-86 (1947) and cases cited therein. 15 Consequently, the assignment clause does not prevent USI from pursuing HI's claim. 41 In the present case, however, defendants argue that the language of the assignment provision indicates not merely an intent to prevent the assignment of the rights and privileges contained in the contract, but also prohibits the assignment of a cause of action. The provision in question, defendants note, prohibits assignment of the right of HI under and in connection with the Agreement. This language, defendants assert, should not be restricted to apply only to HI's contract rights under the Agreement, but should ... apply to all HI's rights, including choses in action, since it is presumed that all HI's rights were intended to fall within the scope of the consent requirement.... Brief of Appellant Joseph A. Bond and Four Seasons Management Company, at 23-24. 42 We have been unable to locate any cases involving exactly the same language as that contained in the present assignment clause. Nonetheless, we do not perceive its terminology as demonstrating an intent to prohibit the assignment of a claim for money damages. In our view, the critical language of the assignment provision for our purposes is its prohibition against the assignment of [t]he right of HI.... A clause which forbids only the assignment of a party's 'rights' under a contract simply does not preclude the assignment of an accrued claim for damages arising from its breach. Cordis Corp. v. Sonics Int'l, Inc., 427 So.2d 782, 783 (Fla.App.1983). See also Paley v. Cocoa Masonry, Inc., 433 So.2d 70, 70 (Fla.App.1983) (same). 43 Moreover, despite defendants' assertions to the contrary, we do not believe that the entire assignment provision on the right of HI under and in connection with can be read as requiring a different interpretation. In our view, that phrase, by defining the acts that fall within a party's right to performance, merely specifies the contractual right that cannot be assigned by HI; it does not show an intent to vary from the general rule allowing assignment of a right to damages. 44 Since the ability to assign a claim for damages is generally not prohibited by an assignment clause, we decline to read the phrase the right ... under and in connection with as altering a party's ability to assign a claim for money damages. See, e.g., Rosecrans v. William S. Lozier, Inc., 142 F.2d 118, 124 (8th Cir.1944) (The prohibition of the contract against assignment is against an assignment of the rights and privileges under the contract. The prohibition of an assignment does not, however, prohibit the assignment of a claim for damages on account of breach of the contract.) (emphasis added). Accord Paley v. Cocoa Masonry, Inc., 433 So.2d 70, 71 (Fla.App.1983). 45 In sum, we conclude that the trial court was correct in its determination that the language of the 1973 Purchase Agreement did not act to prevent HI's assignment of its cause of action to USI.