Contract Assignment & Contract Obligation

[Guy M.]

Example contract verbiage:

"This contract is assignable by Buyer without the written consent of Seller. Assignment does not relieve the parties from their obligations under this contract."

What needs to change here? If the only default remedy for the seller is to keep the buyer's (wholesaler's) earnest money, I don't see a problem with this verbiage.

What do you think?

[Bill Gulley]

Contract Assignment and consent

Is not even necessary in Mo, saying you don't need consent is redundant to the law and points out that you're probably going to assign it which may contradict what you let a seller believe, that I don't know, but most seem to not be upfront. Even being upfront, it's unnecessary to mention it.

The second sentence is the same issue, it's already the law, unnecessary, redundant and shows that the contract was not likely drafted by legal counsel.

Every time investors want to play attorney, trying to save a few bucks, they end up saying things that are not necessary, things that can be questioned, things that may not be clearly stated, things that skew the fairness applicable to a transaction. Writing contracts goes deeper than just writing down understandings, it shows intent, practice, knowledge of legal aspects that are often best left alone so they may be debated or simply cured by custom or law.

In Mo. or in fact any state unless intent to assign was required to be disclosed I would make it a contract issue at all, and in all states if I were the initial buyer, I will have contract responsibilities to the seller, regardless of any assignment unless that seller agrees to release me of liabilities and agrees to contract with the new buyer/assignee.

Don't dream up your own stuff when usual and customary already addresses what you want to happen. :)