06.09.2021 Views

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

American Contract Law for a Global Age, 2017a

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

professional duties that arise from the client-attorney relationship. Those public<br />

policy concerns are not present here.” Why is Johnson not allowed to assign (i.e., sell)<br />

her (tort) malpractice claim against the Martin & Martin law firm, but the firm is<br />

allowed to assign and sell its (contract) claim against Johnson <strong>for</strong> unpaid legal fees?<br />

Are the public policy concerns really that different, or is this simply a situation where<br />

the law protects lawyers more than their clients?<br />

_____________________<br />

MINGLEDORFF’S INC. v. HICKS<br />

Court of Appeals of Georgia<br />

133 Ga. App. 27, 209 S.E.2d 661 (1974).<br />

BELL, Chief Judge.<br />

Air Conditioning and Heating Service Co., Inc., entered into a written contract<br />

with Hicks <strong>for</strong> the installation of heating and air conditioning systems in an<br />

apartment complex. The contract contained a clause prohibiting the assignment of<br />

the contract, “or any part thereof” without the written consent of the other party. Air<br />

Conditioning assigned to the plaintiff Mingledorff’s a portion of the money due Air<br />

Conditioning on the contract without the written consent of defendants. The trial<br />

court granted defendants’ motion <strong>for</strong> judgment on the pleadings.<br />

Plaintiff contends that the anti-assignment clause in issue is invalid.<br />

[Georgia] Code Ann. § 85-1803 permits the assignment of choses in action 5 arising on<br />

a contract but it does not prohibit parties from providing that their contract shall not<br />

be assignable. In Bewick Lumber Co. v. Hall, 21 S.E. 154 (Ga. 1894), it was held that<br />

a credit check payable on demand was assignable in spite of language on the check<br />

that it was not transferable, citing an earlier version of § 85-1803. However, in Cowart<br />

v. Singletary, 79 S.E. 196 (Ga. 1913) it was noted that the instrument in Bewick was<br />

not an executory contract containing mutual obligations and stated that subject to<br />

certain modifications “the parties to an executory contract may in terms prohibit its<br />

assignment, so that an assignee does not succeed to any rights in the contract by<br />

virtue of the assignment.” The contract here is clearly an executory one with mutual<br />

obligations between the parties. While, as contended by plaintiff, it may have been<br />

completely executed by plaintiff’s assignor, this fact would not require a result<br />

invalidating the anti-assignment clause. The nonassignment clause is valid and<br />

en<strong>for</strong>ceable. The provisions found in the Uni<strong>for</strong>m Commercial Code, UCC §§ 2-210(2)<br />

and 9-318(4), which nullify the effects of anti-assignment provisions, have no<br />

Eds.]<br />

5 [Do you know what a “chose in action” is? If not, now would be a good time to look it up.—<br />

______________________________________________________________________________<br />

UNIT 28: ASSIGNMENT AND DELEGATION 595

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!