An assignment is a situation where an individual passes an interest or a right to a third party known as the assignee, (Caligiuri, 2000). The person who transfers such rights or interest is known as an assignor and should have full right over what is to be transferred. In this case the assignment is not valid. The invalidity of the assignment arises from the fact that Bo is not the owner of the store and hence has no rights to make an assignment to a third party. What motivated Bo to make the assignment is regarded as immaterial.
The rights cannot be assigned. This is because Bo should have included Camille in the intention to assign the rights to another party, (Caligiuri, 2000). The basic laws maintain that an assignment should be made with clear consent of the property owners. Misrepresentation is a situation which one party induces the other party to enter into a contract by giving false information, (Harris, & Bromiley, 2007). Bo referred to Camille as a softie and assured fauna not to worry about the assignment right. This has proved to be false information as Camille refused to accept the assignment of the lease to fauna. Fauna can therefore sue Bo in court for lying false information about Camille that led to accepting to enter into contract, (Harris, & Bromiley, 2007). As a result of the false information the other lease opportunities have been take which makes fauna to suffer. Bo's defense cannot be upheld since the two Bo and fauna already entered into a contract. Again there is evidence that Bo promised fauna the lease property. Even though Bo thought that fauna will not depend on the information relied to her, fauna relied on the information and therefore the defense about bragging cannot be withheld by the court and Bo will have to compensate fauna for the losses suffered.
QUESTION:
What would you argue to show that an assignment should go through under the circumstances? Explain.