Who Has The Burden Of Proof For Assignment in Contracts?

The burden of proof for proving a valid assignment in contracts typically lies with the party asserting the assignment. This party must demonstrate that a valid assignment occurred and that they possess the rights or benefits claimed.

In contract law, once an assignment is contested, the burden of proof generally rests with the party claiming that an assignment was made. This means that if, for example, one party asserts that they are entitled to the benefits of a contract due to an assignment, they must furnish evidence proving that the assignment was valid and accepted by the original contracting party. If the assignment is disputed, the existence and terms of the assignment become crucial pieces of evidence in the proceedings.

The requirement to validate an assignment is grounded in the principle that assignments can alter the obligations or benefits originally embedded in a contract. As such, courts typically require the party asserting an assignment to produce documentation or corroborative evidence, such as written notices or agreements demonstrating the transaction. Failure to satisfy this burden can result in the assignment being deemed ineffective, leaving the original assignor with rights to the contract.

Additionally, courts may also consider exceptions depending on specific clauses in a contract that could affect the assignment. For instance, contracts with explicit anti-assignment clauses may impose further complexities in terms of the burden of proof, as the asserting party would need to prove that they fall within legal exceptions or that the contract's language permits the assignment.

Furthermore, in cases of oral assignments, the burden becomes even more substantial since proving the terms and acceptance of such assignments often relies on testimonial evidence, which is generally less reliable. Thus, written assignments are significantly favored to meet the evidentiary standards expected by the courts.

While the burden of proof primarily lies with the party asserting the existence of an assignment, it is essential for all parties involved in contractual relationships to keep accurate and comprehensive records of all communications and agreements related to contractual assignments to support their positions should a dispute arise.

• 1Kendel v. Harlan (1910) - established that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting assignment for enforcement.
• 2Miller v. Missouri (1957) - highlighted the necessity of documentary evidence in proving assignment.
• 3Wiggins v. Barrett (1978) - addressed challenges surrounding oral assignments and the burden of proving acceptance.

• what-is-a-contract-assignment
• how-to-prove-an-assignment-in-contracts
• remedies-for-breach-of-assignment