Assignment

Maybe need to look into this.
https://www.netlawman.co.uk/ia/clearing-the-confusion-on-deeds
If you assign without the express consent of the third party, the third party learns of the assignment and continues to act as before, he thereby confirms acceptance. (Example: sale of a block of telephone contracts, where the customers make payment to the assignee, who continues to provide the service).

If you say you do not consent to the assignment, then surely the assignment cannot happen?

Tiggy?

Assignment is a complicated area, the need to novate a contract is usually for such as construction contracts or insurance policy's where all parties are in agreement to the change of party.

This is Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, as you see, there is no requirement to novate 'things in action', there (along with an agreement between assignor and assignee) just needs to be notice given to the debtor.

Legal assignments of things in action.

(1)Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—
(a)the legal right to such debt or thing in action;
(b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and
(c)the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:
Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice—
(a)that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b)of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the M1Trustee Act, 1925.

(2)This section does not affect the provisions of the M2Policies of Assurance Act, 1867.
[F1(3)The county court has jurisdiction (including power to receive payment of money or securities into court) under the proviso to subsection (1) of this section where the amount or value of the debt or thing in action does not exceed [F2£30,000].]

Thanks, thats useful. I'm coming across things as I go along and "minuting" snippets.

Hi

Tiggy - that is really useful, thank you. Can i just check that in your first sentence 'construction contracts' is correct and not a spell-checked 'constructive contracts'? (i don't want to learn the wrong thing)

Cheers!

iamani wrote:Hi

Tiggy  -  that is really useful, thank you. Can i just check that in your first sentence 'construction contracts' is correct and not a spell-checked 'constructive contracts'? (i don't want to learn the wrong thing)

Cheers!

No, I definitely meant Construction Contracts (where they extensively use Novation), here's a better explanation of the difference between Novation and Assignment in construction/ engineering contracts.

http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal-updates/Assignment-and-novation-in-construction-and-engineering-projects-6359.aspx

i think this validates your assertions that there is no novation if there is an assignment.

1) When one party (OC) wishes to introduce a 3rd party to a contract it has with another, best practice is to novate the contract. This works if all 3 partys agree to the new arrangement.

2) When one party disagrees, any possibility of novation is removed, and if the 1st Party still wishes to involve the new 3rd party it must be by assignment and.....

3).....this is why the recalcitrant 2nd Party (debtor) is wasting their time asking to see a deed of novation. If the debt has been assigned that means a novation either failed or never existed.

4), When an OC assigns a debt, he gives a financial interest in the contract to the 3rd party, but retains his original contractual responsibilities and liabilities, including the obligation to be able to offer good discharge.

5) Am i right in thinking that in an 'absolute' assignment the OC grants the 3rd party all interests,  liabilities and obligations  (including the obligation to be able to give good discharge) connected with the contract/debt to the 3rd party, and removes the OC from the picture completely?

6)  i believe an assignment can only be done against an interest in an insurance or pension policy  -  would you agree?
.

1) When one party (OC) wishes to introduce a 3rd party to a contract it has with another, best practice is to novate the contract. This works if all 3 partys agree to the new arrangement.

Yes


2) When one party disagrees, any possibility of novation is removed, and if the 1st Party still wishes to involve the new 3rd party it must be by assignment and.....

Yes


3).....this is why the recalcitrant 2nd Party (debtor) is wasting their time asking to see a deed of novation. If the debt has been assigned that means a novation either failed or never existed.

Never existed


4), When an OC assigns a debt, he gives a financial interest in the contract to the 3rd party, but retains his original contractual responsibilities and liabilities, including the obligation to be able to offer good discharge.

Yes, this is called equitable assignment.


5) Am i right in thinking that in an 'absolute' assignment the OC grants the 3rd party all interests,  liabilities and obligations  (including the obligation to be able to give good discharge) connected with the contract/debt to the 3rd party, and removes the OC from the picture completely?

Yes.


6)  i believe an assignment can only be done against an interest in an insurance or pension policy  -  would you agree?

No, you have to read Section 136 again, they can assign any debt or 'other legal thing in action'

Hi tiggy,

just for clarification,

2) When one party disagrees,

Would that not require the debtor to be asked ? Clearly they are bypassing that altogether.

Hi Tiggy,

does or can this be tied in at all? To challenge the assignment in some way?

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=74522

Hi Tiggy

Thanks, i feel like i 'm making progress. Is there any chance you could humour me a little further? i have a theory revolving around point (6), which, if correct, might blow your socks off (the way you usually do to us).

1) Isn't there usually some sort of insurance against default with construction contracts?

2) Our titles and surnames (our 'assigned person') are our license to do commerce - yes?

3) This 'person' has limited liability in commerce. Am i right in thinking that that limited liability is only enabled by some sort of insurance policy?

4) The 'person' usually operates in D/C (debtor/creditor) commercial jurisdiction?

5) The 'person' has remedies available to him in D/C that can discharge debt - endorsement, A4V, promissory notes/securities. Bills of Exchange stuff. Yes?

6) Might it not then follow (if the above points are correct of course) that an absolute assignment only appears when a debt is vouched safe by insurance?

i realise point (6) is a little contentious. The reason i'm convinced of it is that when i Googled 'absolute assignment' the first article i looked at (and it wasn't a freeman site but something like that 'shoosmiths' site you linked) asserted that an absolute assignment only occurs in cases involving a policy of some sort ie insurance or pension. (i also find it notable that they didn't include 'assurance' policies....)

i can find nothing in sec136 lopa (as posted) that contradicts what i am proposing here, in fact i think it might support my thesis.

Of course i realise this is all conjecture on my part, and i could be wrong, hopefully you can tell me where so i can maybe look in a more appropriate direction.

Thanks for taking the time to inform, i really do appreciate it.

Cheers!

Hi LionsShare

That bl@@dy Bills of Exchange! i've looked at it several times and it's one of the hardest for me to get my head around. i don't understand most of the terms used so i can't get the initial grasp that would expose a thread to pull at (unlike the lopa136).

The only other one i've looked at that is quite as difficult is the CQV 1666 - though tbh i've not really looked at any that haven't appeared here or the old site or FMOTL (have you noticed 'goodf' has now lost its 'f' ?).

Cheers!

daveiron wrote:Hi tiggy,

just for clarification,

2) When one party disagrees,

Would that not require the debtor to be asked ?  Clearly they are bypassing that altogether.

Of course they're bypassing it - they're NOT novating the contracts, they're assigning them. Why would they ask if you're happy to novate a contract if they're not novating them.

LionsShare wrote:Hi Tiggy,

does or can this be tied in at all? To challenge the assignment in some way?

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=74522

That looks as though that comes from the Bill of Exchange Act, won't be applicable as it's very unlikely they're using Bills of Exchange to purchase the debts.

Hi

Is it possible they wouldn't be using B.o.E. in the hope that we won't apply the remedies within it? Just a thought.

Cheers!

[quote="iamani"]Hi Tiggy

Thanks, i feel like i 'm making progress. Is there any chance you could humour me a little further? i have a theory revolving around point (6), which, if correct, might blow your socks off (the way you usually do to us).

1) Isn't there usually some sort of insurance against default with construction contracts?

Yes, possibly with Construction Contracts ( ie during a huge civil engineering projects they may insure against one of the contractors going into receivership). Has no bearing on assignment though.


2) Our titles and surnames (our 'assigned person') are our license to do commerce  -  yes?

We can engage in 'commerce' (i.e. buy things) from any age by rocking up at your local sweet shop and from memory you don't need to give a name (or be licenced) to buy a sherbet dibdab.


3) This 'person' has limited liability in commerce. Am i right in thinking that that limited liability is only enabled by some sort of insurance policy?

The only limited liability you get is either when you have set up a Limited Company or a Limited Liability Partnership, otherwise you are fully liable for your own actions.


4) The 'person' usually operates in D/C (debtor/creditor) commercial jurisdiction.

We all engage in commerce just about everyday of our lives.


5) The 'person' has remedies available to him in D/C that can discharge debt  -  endorsement, A4V, promissory notes/securities. Bills of Exchange stuff.  Yes?

Show me one person any of the above has worked for.


6) Might it not then follow (if the above points are correct of course) that an absolute assignment only appears when a debt is vouched safe by insurance?

What insurance, you can't possibly extrapolate from the fact large construction contracts may have insurance to 'any debt' being vouched safe by insurance.


i realise point (6) is a little contentious. The reason i'm convinced of it is that when i Googled 'absolute assignment' the first article i looked at (and it wasn't a freeman site but something like that 'shoosmiths' site you linked) asserted that an absolute assignment only occurs in cases involving a policy of some sort ie insurance or pension. (i also find it notable that they didn't include 'assurance' policies....)

As I said before they can assign a debt or any legal thing in action, it doesn't say 'you can only assign an insurance or pension policy' - does it?

iamani wrote:Hi LionsShare

That bl@@dy Bills of Exchange! i've looked at it several times and it's one of the hardest for me to get my head around. i don't understand most of the terms used so i can't get the initial grasp that would expose a thread to pull at (unlike the lopa136).

The only other one i've looked at that is quite as difficult is the CQV 1666  -  though tbh i've not really looked at any that haven't appeared here or the old site or FMOTL (have you noticed 'goodf' has now lost its 'f' ?).

Cheers!

I know this is coming slightly late but was typing out when the last few comments were added.

Hi iamani,

This is all IMO BTW.

My comprehension of BOE 1992 sect59 sub sect 1 & 3.

sub 1 on or after the maturity date of a BOE then good discharge is done by either the recipient (to it was given in the 1st place), or someone else on behalf of, easy to follow I think.

Sub 3 is harder to follow, an accommodated party – accommodation is I think defined as “doing a favour without consideration”  - legal def’n. Is when someone decides to “pay” on behalf of again someone else but signs as an indorser, that is  - when say debt purchaser comes along & signs (purchases the debt for probably next to nothing & then goes off to claim…), only has agreed to pay ? on a BOE but the only main difference this time the debtor will NOT necessarily know it has been paid by someone else & at that point the OC’s Title becomes “defective” – by definition of payment, once paid then it can’t be paid again.

The whole point of this is when a BOE is paid then that’s it its PAID – finished, so how come these debt purchsers can carry on like they have legal title to ? & hound the alleged debtor until…

LionsShare wrote:

iamani wrote:Hi LionsShare

That bl@@dy Bills of Exchange! i've looked at it several times and it's one of the hardest for me to get my head around. i don't understand most of the terms used so i can't get the initial grasp that would expose a thread to pull at (unlike the lopa136).

The only other one i've looked at that is quite as difficult is the CQV 1666  -  though tbh i've not really looked at any that haven't appeared here or the old site or FMOTL (have you noticed 'goodf' has now lost its 'f' ?).

Cheers!

I know this is coming slightly late but was typing out when the last few comments were added.

Hi iamani,

This is all IMO BTW.

My comprehension of BOE 1992 sect59 sub sect 1 & 3.

sub 1 on or after the maturity date of a BOE then good discharge is done by either the recipient (to it was given in the 1st place), or someone else on behalf of, easy to follow I think.

Sub 3 is harder to follow, an accommodated party – accommodation is I think defined as “doing a favour without consideration”  - legal def’n. Is when someone decides to “pay” on behalf of again someone else but signs as an indorser, that is  - when say debt purchaser comes along & signs (purchases the debt for probably next to nothing & then goes off to claim…), only has agreed to pay ? on a BOE but the only main difference this time the debtor will NOT necessarily know it has been paid by someone else & at that point the OC’s Title becomes “defective” – by definition of payment, once paid then it can’t be paid again.

The whole point of this is when a BOE is paid then that’s it its PAID – finished, so how come these debt purchsers can carry on like they have legal title to ? & hound the alleged debtor until…

Because they don't use Bills of Exchange to purchase the debts. A Bill of Exchange is a specific financial instrument only rarely used now in international trade.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/billofexchange.asp

Tiggy wrote:

LionsShare wrote:Hi Tiggy,

does or can this be tied in at all? To challenge the assignment in some way?

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=74522

That looks as though that comes from the Bill of Exchange Act, won't be applicable as it's very unlikely they're using Bills of Exchange to purchase the debts.

Hi Tiggy,

Sorry to be a pain, am confused, perhaps debt purchasers won't directly use BOE to purchase debts but don't we use currency to purchase anything that would come under BOE1882? EG going to supermarket to buy food, at the till you get a receipt which itemizes all, could I simply ask for an invoice or the "bill" to pay?

In the US to pay I know they do say "here is a ? dollar BILL" Ok here we don't say "here is a ? £ BILL" but surely the principal is the same? Have I got it totally wrong then?

IN BOE1882 there is a section on promissory notes sect 4 I think, UK £ notes are prom notes?

In company Memorandum Of Association in normally chapter 13 I think it lists when doing commerce negociable instruments to be used - cash, BOE, cheque, & the list goes on. I know from experience that company Memorandum Of Association are issued by companies house to ALL companies irrespective of trade sector.

Hi

LionsShare - what i took from it was that they don't use the B.o.E. statute to chase the debt, but it doesn't affect our right to implement it in our defence.

Cheers!

iamani wrote:Hi

LionsShare  -  what i took from it was that they don't use the B.o.E. statute to chase the debt, but it doesn't affect our right to implement it in our defence.

Cheers!

Thanks iamani that's what I was after. Another post to explain follows...

OK form the link I posted earlier:

“As can be seen, and specifically by subsection 1 and 3, once a Bill has been paid, by, or on behalf of the drawee or acceptor, or by the party accommodated, the Bill is discharged. And let us make no mistake, when any DCA purchases an alleged debt/account, it is making a one off payment, therefore paying the Bill. And, therefore, the debt is discharged/paid and cannot, by definition of payment, be paid again.”

Even though debt purchasers may not use BOE to purchase debt it is still 1 instrument that comes under BOE Act 1882, so does prom notes & as we know BO England give us £ notes to use which are prom notes so, IMO sect 59 sub 1,3 should apply.

Comments please…

Hi LionsShare

Just seen your B.o.E. post - thanks!

Cheers!

Hi

LionsShare - imo (not that i want to contradict Tiggy) you have it right.

Everything we do is 'international trade' as our persons (foreign situs trust, anyone?) are both traded internationally and trade internationally. Not to mention that the bodies we would use the BOE against are themselves international entities of one sort or another.

Don't forget we are all termed as 'occupiers'......

Tiggy - thanks for all the help, i'm gonna think about it some more and see of i can make more sense of it all.

Cheers!

iamani wrote:Hi

LionsShare  -  imo (not that i want to contradict Tiggy) you have it right.

Everything we do is 'international trade' as our persons (foreign situs trust, anyone?) are both traded internationally and trade internationally.

Tiggy  -  thanks for all the help, i'm gonna think about it some more and see of i can make more sense of it all.

Cheers!

Hi iamani,

As Tiggy has spent it would appear (no offense Tiggy) many hours reading statutes/acts we are coming at this from different angles & Tiggy is simply forcing us to go & research for ourselves - which is a good thing instead of spoon feeding, putting forward differing points of view & as we bring ideas here we can then "have you seen this or that" brings forth conclusion which will be at least plausable on what ever subject.

Your last point to me iamani brings in & even further supports (in this case) what I have said as a good example!

Just in case we do have it wrong it is still important even if its slight comments to have those that are more experienced to come in, No you are wrong because of...

LionsShare wrote:

Tiggy wrote:

LionsShare wrote:Hi Tiggy,

does or can this be tied in at all? To challenge the assignment in some way?

http://getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=74522

That looks as though that comes from the Bill of Exchange Act, won't be applicable as it's very unlikely they're using Bills of Exchange to purchase the debts.

Hi Tiggy,

Sorry to be a pain, am confused, perhaps debt purchasers won't directly use BOE to purchase debts but don't we use currency to purchase anything that would come under BOE1882? EG going to supermarket to buy food, at the till you get a receipt which itemizes all, could I simply ask for an invoice or the "bill" to pay?

In the US to pay I know they do say "here is a ? dollar BILL" Ok here we don't say "here is a ? £ BILL" but surely the principal is the same? Have I got it totally wrong then?

IN BOE1882 there is a section on promissory notes sect 4 I think, UK £ notes are prom notes?

In company Memorandum Of Association in normally chapter 13 I think it lists when doing commerce negociable instruments to be used - cash, BOE, cheque, & the list goes on. I know from experience that company Memorandum Of Association are issued by companies house to ALL companies irrespective of trade sector.

A Bill of Exchange is a form of promissory note.

A cheque is an example of a promissory note and classed as legal tender, so what do you do if someone says 'I don't accept cheques anymore'? Is there anything that forces them to accept it?

If you don't 'have' to accept cheques, how do think you can force someone to accept your Promissory Note. Just because a company says in their MorA that they will accept a PN or even a Bill of Exchange does not mean they have to, just in the same way they don't 'have to' accept cheques!