Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff, Bel-Ray Company (Plaintiff), sued the Defendants, Lubritene, which is Chemrite (Pty) Ltd.’s (Chemrite) successor in interest (Defendant), to compel arbitration, and Lubritene claimed that the assignment from Chemrite to Lubritene was invalid.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Unless a contract specifically limits the power to assign, i.e. by containing language to the effect that assignments shall be void or invalid, the breach of a contractual provision prohibiting assignments merely permits a recovery of damages, but does not render the assignment ineffective.
Where a party seeks affirmative relief from a court, it normally submits itself to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the adjudication of claims arising from the same subject matter.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Are the assignments at issue valid even though the Defendants did not execute them in strict compliance with the contracts?
Held. Yes. A contract provision prohibiting assignment of rights under the contract gives the obligor the right to damages for breach of the terms forbidding assignment, but does not render the assignment ineffective. However, where the contractual provision limits the power to assign, the assignment is invalid. The power to assign is only limited where the intention to do so is express, usually with language such as “all assignments are void and invalid.” Here, none of the assignments at issue contain terms stating that assignments without the Plaintiff’s written consent are void or invalid. Therefore, Chemrite’s assignment to Lubritene was enforceable and Lubritene must arbitrate the claims.
Discussion. Prohibition of assignment clauses only limit the right to assign unless it is explicitly stated that the power to assign is limited.