In other cases, the contract may be a negotiable instrument in which the person receiving the instrument may become a holder in due course, which is similar to an assignee except that issues, such as lack of performance, by the assignor may not be a valid defense for the obligor.
As a response, the United States Federal Trade Commission promulgated Rule 433, formally known as the "Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses", which "effectively abolished the [holder in due course] doctrine in consumer credit transactions".
The rights may be vested or contingent, Mortgages and loans are relatively straightforward and amenable to assignment.
An assignor may assign rights, such as a mortgage note issued by a third party borrower, and this would require the latter to make repayments to the assignee.
The assignor often delegates duties in addition to rights to the assignee, but the assignor may remain ultimately responsible.
However, in the United States, there are various laws that limit the liability of the assignee, often to facilitate credit, as assignees are typically lenders.
However, it is possible to assign the lease, but the new party (assignee) will be subject to the lessor’s credit evaluation process and approval.
The assignment does not necessarily have to be in writing; however, the assignment agreement must show an intent to transfer rights.
A contract may contain a non-assignment clause, which prohibits the assignment of specific rights and some various rights, or of the entire contract, to another.
However, such a clause does not necessarily destroy the power of either party to make an assignment.
Instead, it merely gives the other party the ability to sue for breach of contract if such an assignment is made.
However, an assignment of a contract containing such a clause will be ineffective if the assignee knows of the non-assignment clause, or if the non-assignment clause specifies that "all assignments are void".