This practice note focuses on the allocation of collateral collateral guarantees (see Practice Note: What are collateral guarantees?). For more detailed instructions on assignment in general, see Practical Notes: Assignment in Manufacturing Contracts and Legal and Fair Assignment in Manufacturing Contracts. Although this reference to practice refers to collateral collateral guarantees, the principles also apply when third party rights are used as an alternative to warranty guarantees, see: Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 in construction – overview. The general rule is that if a contract is silent on the issue of assignment, this means that the benefit of the contract can be assigned indefinitely or without consent (as permitted by law under section 136(1) of the Property Law Act 1925 (APA 1925)) – it is not necessary to obtain the debtor`s consent to a proposed assignment. See Practical Note: Restrictions on assignment of rights in construction contracts. Tzaneros commenced proceedings before the Supreme Court of New South Wales for breach of the contractual guarantees allegedly covered by the assignment in the deeds. Tzaneros claimed nearly A$15 million in damages from WGC and other parties as a result of these shortcomings. A key issue was whether the assignment of the benefit of the contractual guarantees allowed Tzaneros to assert its claim against WGC. A single judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales has held that an assignment of contractual collateral in a contract for the construction of a container terminal is effective in advocating for the assignment at the time of the assignment 3.The assignor knows nothing that affects the value of the assignment. The judge ruled in favour of the plaintiff.

His Honour noted that the wording of the Order, namely “all the benefits of construction guarantees”, included the right to sue for violations that had already occurred. The judge also dismissed the defense “without loss.” In the alliance, the question was whether a subsequent buyer of the property had suffered independent damage due to breaches of the warranty by the customer. In the present case, the applicant brought an action not because of its obligations but because of the rights conferred on it in connection with the sale of the terminal. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be inferred that the price paid reflected the fact that the guarantees were assigned at the same time. The judge considered the improvement position [133] – [137] and concluded that it was not appropriate to grant a discount for the improvement […].