Editing Assignment (law) (section)

==Equitable assignment==
An '''equitable assignment''' is an assignment, or transfer of rights, in [[Equity (law)|equity]].

===General principles===

There are numerous requirements that exist for an equitable assignment of property, outside the 'standard' ''clear and unconditional intention to assign''.<ref>{{cite AustLII|VSCA|39|2007|litigants=Westbourne Grammar School v Sanget Pty |courtname=auto}}.</ref> These requirements are fundamental characteristics of a statutory assignment: Absolute assignment (an unconditional transfer: conditions precedent or part of a debt are not absolute) and the assignment must be made in writing and signed by the assignor, and in particular, this applies to real property.<ref>{{cite Legislation AU|NSW|act|ca1919141|Conveyancing Act 1919|23C}}.</ref>

Assigning future property in equity cannot be gratuitous. The assignor must receive consideration for the agreement, otherwise the assignment will be ineffective.<ref name="Normnan v FCT"/> However, an absolute assignment does not require consideration to be given. Secondly, between the period of agreement between assignor and assignee and acquisition by the assignor, the assignees rights are not [[contractual]], but rather a [[property|proprietary right]] to the property.<ref>{{cite AustLII|FCA|39|1978|litigants=Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Everett |parallelcite=(1978) 21 [[Australian Law Reports|ALR]] 625 at p. 643 |courtname=[[Federal Court of Australia|Federal Court (Full Court)]] (Australia)}}.</ref> This means the assignee has an interest in this future property, in the same manner any owner has over property.

In equity, these principles operate to protect both the assignor and the assignee. In ''Norman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation'',<ref name="Normnan v FCT"/> a taxpayer attempted to assign by [[deed]], to his wife certain moneys which he was eventually going to receive. This included dividends and [[interest]] due on [[loan]]s. The court held the interest and the [[dividend]]s were expectancies or possibilities which could not be assigned without consideration. The court's worry was that assignments without consideration might be used as instruments of fraud, to avoid creditors and tax collection.

===Mere expectancies===
Courts will not enforce a contract to assign an expectancy unless there is a valuable consideration. For example, under a settlement of property the respondent "the son" would have been entitled to an equal portion of properties along with his other siblings which was gained in a [[Settlement (litigation)|settlement]] by his mother. This portion was only his when allocated to him at his mothers discretion. Prior to this allocation being made, the respondent allotted his benefit to [[trustee]]s for a voluntary settlement. He was assigning or purporting to assign something which he might become entitled to in the future, not a [[contingent interest]]. The judgment held it ineffective and elaborated on previous points to state the respondent cannot be compelled to allow the trustees to retain the appointed sum.<ref>Northumberland (Duke) v Inland Revenue Comrs</ref>