Ned and Trayvon enter into a contract for Ned to buy goods from Trayvon. The contract contains an antiassignment clause. Ned breaches the contract to pay for the goods after Trayvon delivers the items as required by contract. Trayvon does not want to sue for breach, so instead he assigns the right to pursue damages for breach of contract to Melissa. Is the assignment valid?
A) No, because the antiassignment clause prohibits the assignment.
B) No, because it would increase Ned's duties to have to pay Melissa.
C) Yes, but only if the assignment complies with the statute of frauds.
D) Yes, because antiassignment clauses do not affect the right to receive damages for breach of contract to sell goods or services.
E) Yes, because antiassignment clauses are no longer valid if any part of the contract is not performed.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Antiassignment clauses typically prevent the transfer of duties or rights under a contract to another party without the original party's consent. However, they do not restrict the assignment of the right to receive damages for a breach of contract. This is because the assignment of a claim for damages does not alter the original duties or increase the burden on the party who breached the contract.

Ned and Trayvon Enter into a Contract for Ned to Buy