CORDIS CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
SONICS INTERNATIONAL, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Cordis Corporation sued Sonics International to recover unpaid commissions that Mexcor had earned under a distributorship agreement and assigned to Cordis. The trial court dismissed the action based on a contractual clause prohibiting assignment without written consent. The appellate court reversed, holding that a general prohibition on assignment of contract "rights" does not preclude assignment of accrued claims for damages arising from breach.
A contractual provision that forbids only the assignment of a party's "rights" under a contract does not preclude the assignment of an accrued claim for damages arising from the contract's breach. The provision applies only to assignment of performance due under the contract, not to assignment of the right to receive damages for breach.
[1] A contractual provision prohibiting assignment of "rights" under a contract does not preclude the assignment of an accrued claim for damages arising from its breach.
[2] A chose in action for damages caused by a contract breach is freely assignable.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a clause which, like this, forbids only the assignment of a party's "rights" under a contract simply does not preclude the assignment of an accrued claim for damages arising from its breach”
Establishes the core holding that general anti-assignment clauses do not bar assignment of damage claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSonics International terminated a distributorship agreement with Mexcor S.A., owing Mexcor over $175,000 in earned commissions. Mexcor assigned its cl…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Chose In Action cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
When a distributorship agreement between the appellee Sonics International, Inc. and Mexcor S.A. was terminated, Son-ics allegedly owed Mexcor over $175,000 in commissions it had earned while the contract was in effect. Mexcor assigned the claim against Sonics to the appellant Cordis Corporation, and Cordis, in turn, sued Son-ics to recover the unpaid amount. Sonics •moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it had not agreed to the assignment as it asserted was required by the following provision of its agreement with Mexcor: In this appeal, Cordis challenges the trial court’s order granting the motion on this basis and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
We reverse. The rights of Distributor [Mexcor], hereunder shall not be assigned or transferred, either voluntarily or by operation of law, without [Sonics International’s] written consent, nor shall the duties of Distributor hereunder be delegated in whole or in part. Any such assignment, transfer or delegation shall be of no force or effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon Distributor and inure to the benefit of SI, its successors and/or assigns. It is clear that, while contractual provisions against assignability are generally enforceable in Florida, Troup v. Meyer, 116 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), the clause relied on by Sonics is inapplicable to the present situation. One which, like this, forbids only the assignment of a party’s “rights” under a contract simply does not preclude the assignment of an accrued claim for damages arising from its breach. Rosecrans v. William S. Lozier, Inc., 142 F. 2d 118, 124 (8th Cir.1944) (“The prohibition of the contract against assignment is against an assignment of the rights and privileges under the contract. This prohibition of assignment does not, however, prohibit the assignment of a claim for damages on account of breach of the contract.’’); Charles L. Bowman & Co. v. Erwin, 468 F. 2d 1293, 1297 (5th Cir.1972) (“The law draws a distinction ... between assignment of performance due under a contract and assignment of the right to receive contractual payments.”); Trubowitch v. Riverbank Canning Co., 30 Cal.2d 335, 182 P. 2d 182 (1947); see also, Portuguese-American Bank of San Francisco v. Welles, 242 U.S. 7, 37 S.Ct. 3, 61 L.Ed. 116 (1916).
In Troup, supra, upon which Sonics heavily relies, the contract expressly forbade the assignment of “commissions accruing under this agreement.” 1 116 So. 2d at 468. Cf. also, Rafkind v. Simon, 402 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (enforcing specific prohibition against assignment of partnership interest in joint venture agreement).
In decisive contrast, the provision before us has no effect upon Mexcor’s well-established right freely to assign its chose in action for the damages caused by Sonics’ breach. Spears v. West Coast Builders' Supply Co., 101 Fla. 980, 133 So. 97 (1931); Oceanic International Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507, 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); 4 Fla.Jur.2d Assignments § 5 (1978).
We therefore reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further consistent proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
. We need not decide either whether, insofar as it restricts the assignability of an accrued chose of action, the Troup decision should be overruled, see Portuguese-American Bank of San Francisco v. Welles, supra, or whether the UCC, which would unquestionably invalidate such a provision, Sec. 679.318(4), Fla.Stat. (1979); Florida First National Bank v. Fryd Construction Corp., 245 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), applies to the instant case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aldana v. Colonial Palms Plaza, Ltd., 591 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…v. Erwin, 468 F. 2d 1293, 1297 (5th Cir.1972); Cedar Point Apartments, Ltd. v. Cedar Investment Corp., 693 F. 2d 748, 753 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 914, 103 S.Ct. 1893, 77 L.Ed.2d 283 (1983); see also Cordis Corp. v. Sonics Int’l, Inc., 427 So. 2d 782, 783 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 434 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1983); Paley v. Cocoa Masonry, Inc., 433 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Touche Ross & Co., 854 F. 2d 1223, 1234 (10th Cir.1988) (citing Cordis and Paley)’, 3 S. Williston, Th…
-
Allegheny Cas. Co. v. Roche Sur., Inc., 885 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…uild-up fund. We disagree. The contract forbids assignment of “this contract or any interest therein.” Because it does not forbid the assignment of the Doborganeses’ money, they were free to assign it. See Cordis Corp. v. Sonics International, Inc., 427 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Charles L. Bowman & Co. v. Erwin, 468 F. 2d 1293 (5th Cir.1972). Furthermore, even if the contract did forbid the assignment of the trust funds, Allegheny would not simply be allowed to keep the money. See Timberland Consolidated…
-
Sousa v. Zuni Transp., Inc., 286 So. 3d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ld not have granted summary judgment based on Zuni’s lack of consent to the Assignment. Florida law interprets anti-assignment clauses to prohibit only the assignment of the right to seek performance. See, e.g., Cordis Corp. v. Sonics Int’l, Inc., 427 So. 2d 782, 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (finding the assignment at issue valid because the anti-assignment clause had no effect on the “well-established right freely to assign . . . chose[s] in action for the damages caused by [a] breach” (citing Spears v. W. Coast…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Oceanic Int'l Corp. v. Lantana Boatyard, 402 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Spears v. W. Coast Bldrs. Sup. Co., 133 So. 97 (Fla. 1931)
- Portuguese-American Bank of San Francisco v. Welles, 242 U.S. 7 (U.S. 1916)
- Rosecrans v. William S. Lozier, Inc., 142 F.2d 118 (8th Cir. 1944)
- Charles L. Bowman & Co. v. Erwin, 468 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1972)
- Troup v. Meyer, 116 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Fla. First Nat'l Bank AT KEY W. v. Fryd Constr. Corp., 245 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Rafkind v. Simon, 402 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)