Rethinking Assignability
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21299872 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Paul MacMahon (0000-0003-3386-0667, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 79 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 288-314 |
| Publication date | 2020-07-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Cambridge Law Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0008-1973 • E-ISSN: 1469-2139 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0008197320000367 |
| OpenAlex | W4253077718 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 4 |
When should a contractual right be assignable to a non-party? English law's answer to this question is complex, and many of its rules are difficult to justify. In some respects, the law appears unreasonably pro-assignment, whereas sometimes it denies assignability to rights that should be assignable. This article contends that, in developing the law of assignability, the judiciary and Parliament have relied on a series of dubious ideas that deviate from the law's usual approach to contracts, and the current law rests partly on intuitive policy rationales that do not withstand scrutiny. The main aim of the article is to propose a new framework for thinking about the law of assignability that is more closely aligned with general ideas about contract law
Law and economics · Parliament · Political science · Scrutiny · Sociology · Computer Science · Conflict of Laws and Jurisdiction · European and International Contract Law · Law · Legal principles and applications
| Highly cited | No |
|---|