Breach of a Prohibition of Assignment - Essay Example

Assignment on Breach of a Prohibition of Assignment Table of Contents Sl Particulars Page 1. Abstract 3 2. Introduction 4 3. Chapter 1 5 4. Chapter 2 9 5. Chapter 3 19 6. Chapter 4 22 7. Conclusions 23 8. Reference List 24 Assignment on Breach of a Prohibition of Assignment Abstract The general rule regarding assignment of rights, especially of financial and economic matters needs to be underpinned by certain established and enforceable rules and regulations. One of the first rule that applies to assignment laws is that the said third party should be part of contract, and also due consent of main debtor needs to be taken before assignment could be made. In case of Barbados Trust Co. (BTC) v. Bank of Zambia (BoZ), one of the earlier assignments made by the creditor was to Barclays Bank, and through a series of other assignments, it finally reached Barbados Trust Company, (BTC), a non-banking Company. When BTC, the ultimate creditor, took up its claims with principal debtor,BoZ, the latter avoided it on the ground that the assignments were carried out without their consent. This was validated in Court serving as classic example of enforcement of existing laws. Again, while considering 2007 case of Ruttle Plant Ltd v. Secretary of State for the Environment and Rural Affairs, Courts took a view that grant of the remedy of rescission and the requirement of counter-rescission was a matter for the court to decide at the time when it came to consider whether to grant that remedy. However, there has been a marked departure from judicial precedent in the British Energy case. One of the assignees, after Bank of America, Credit Suisse disclaimed their liability stating that they were not parties, but merely assignees of Bank. However, the Courts felt that Credit Suisse had entered into the option concurrence through Barclays, that Credit Suisse was a party to the option agreements and was held by the restrictions in, among other, Clause 31. Thus, CS was held responsible although they were only assignees and not part of original contract. Assignment on Breach of a Prohibition of Assignment Introduction: Assignments on breach of a prohibition of Assignment would be decided according to the facts and issues surrounding each case, and needs to be seen with indisparity, dispassion and detached non discrimination. The distressed third group may seek recompense of harm, or ban. In English law, the universal rule is that devolution of agreement may be allocated to third party, if the agreement or contract is a private agreement, or contract encloses constraints on contract. The approval of third party may be viewed as one of the main aspects of valid contract. “In English contract law, an assignment involves an 'assignor' transferring some or all of its rights under a contract to an 'assignee', so that the assignee is entitled to the corresponding performance directly from, and can enforce those rights against, the non-assigning party. An assignment in itself does not create a contract between the assignee and the non-assigning party nor does it make the assignee a party to the original contract.” (Assignment-avoiding the pitfalls: Legal briefing from the commercial group, 2009). The vivisection of the three relevant cases regarding breach of assignment and also breach of a prohibition on assignment is discussed below CHAPTER 1 Barbados Trust Co. Ltd v Bank of Zambia [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 445: In this case, the question arouse as to whether declaration of trust is already accepted outside the scope of non-assignment clauses- Under law, a loan facility arrangement, disallowing assignment made without the debtor’s consent could be reinforced, if not made to a bank, or to a financial institution. In this case, assignees sought prohibition by laying claims to be trustees of the assignor. But the Court did not consider this aspect and disallowed this petition. There are also other factors that come into consideration in that, even if the assignee wished to avoid the prohibitive clause by claiming to be the trustee of the assignee, this cannot be enforced in a Court of Law. Thus, it is witnessed in this case, Barbados Trust Co Bank of Zambia, the contract would need to be enforced by third party in terms of claim for outstanding advances made to defendant. There are issues of whether advances made by trustee for claimant, in terms of validity of declaration of trust. Question : Whether declaration of trust is prohibited by terms of advances. The question is whether the validity of assignment to trustee is honoured and also whether third party beneficiary could bring action in its own name. “The issues included whether restrictions on assignment contained in a clause in a facility agreement could be circumvented by means of a declaration of trust.” (Handyside 2009). The case of Barbados Trust Co. (BTC) v. Bank of Zambia (BoZ) could be seen in the context of fact that in this case, one of the earlier assignments made by the creditor was to Bank of America (BoA), and through a series of other assignments, it finally ended up with BTC, a non-banking Company. When BTC, the ultimate creditor, took up its claims with BoZ, the latter avoided it on the ground that the assignments were carried out without their consent. The creditors took refuge in the fact that assignments were carried out on the basis of trusteeship, and BoZ’s defence to the recovery action was that the declaration of trust was ineffective because it was made in breach of the contractual prohibition on transfer of the debt and thus “the transaction has no effect.” (Allcock 1983). This was upheld in the Courts, in which the Courts were also of the view that if allowed, this would amount to a gross violation of the terms of the facility of letters of credit, in which it is possible for a non-banking company to gain direct access to the creditor, BoZ, for settlement of debt. Thus the decided verdict in the 1933 privity of contract case of Vandepitte v. Preferred Accident Insurance, the only difference being that contract of agency was not expressed, which was necessary to be done, but was deemed to be implied. The Vandepitte case clearly states that “intention to constitute the trust must be positively affirmed.” (Duhaime 2010). Barbados Trust Co. Ltd v Bank of Zambia [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 445-The case of Barbados Trust Co. (BTC) v. Bank of Zambia (BoZ) could be seen in the circumstance of information that in this case. Every agreement or contract encloses provision which searches for abolished parties from relocating their right to any other party to the contract. If the parties of the agreement have authentic industrial interest in certifying that, merely that person comes into contractual affiliation by means of the individual picked as the other group to the agreement and nobody else. The recognition of the other party to the agreement is very much vital for numerous grounds. “Article 12 of the Facility Agreement provided that each of the lenders could assign all or any part of their rights under the facility to a third party provided always that: i. the third party was itself a bank or a financial institution; and ii. The prior written consent of the Borrower had been obtained (consent not to be unreasonably withheld and to be deemed given if the Borrower failed to reply to a request for consent within 15 days of the request).” (Grene 2007). Arguments for and against: This case is a one of the recent case and it said that a legitimate (valid) trust was generated as among the assignor and the assignee. And also in this case there was a sequence of additional assignment in violation of a proviso of the contract which limited task by the lender. On e of the key question in this case is that whether Barbados Trust Co. Ltd could have a duty or right of act in opposition to the borrower in the contract. Where the agreement forbids or limits relocate by a party to the contract, a relocate in violation of those contractual terms is unsuccessful as in opposition to any of the other party to the first party. Nevertheless this particular case law specifies that a task in violation of a contractual ban or constraint on task may still but for specifically barred, be an effectual agreement among the assignor and assignee. In this case it was alleged that a legitimate belief or trust was formed among the assignor and assignee however the decision is uncertain as to whether the faith was continues or the agreement itself. The parties recognize that the sequence of task in violation of the contract had not reasonably allocated rights in the contract to Barbados trust company. The lender of evidence was unenthusiastic to carry an achievement in opposition to the borrower. “The Claimant was (and is) not a bank or a "financial institution". It was therefore expressly excluded from taking a valid assignment of the Asset and acquiring a right to claim to recover it from Bank of Zambia by Article 12.01(A) of the Facility. If the Claimant is right, the express restriction in Article 12.01(A) would achieve very little. Any Bank could declare itself to be a trustee of the Asset for any third party which could then claim the Asset in, in substance, the same way as if it were an assignee.” (England and Wales court of appeal (civil division) decisions, 2007). Contracts prohibition or warning task would have to be summarized so as also to ban announcements of faith or in any case such announcements providing a straight right of act in opposition to the obligor. The Court of plea judgment in this particular case, that is Barbados Trust Company Limited v Bank of Zambia, is that it is all set surrounded by the troubled liability ground, hand out as a warning note to each and every one would be either the assignors or the assignees with the intention of that there to be an efficient task, enormous concern must be in use to make sure that preventive agreements are obeyed with or, if fulfilment is not possible, that waivers are gained from that of the borrower. CHAPTER 2 Ruttle Plant Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Rural Affairs [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 264: This case relates to disputes regarding payment of interest rates on delayed payment for commercial debts under the statutory norms laid down by the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. “The Act provides for recovery of a high rate of interest (currently 8 per cent above base) on commercial debts which are not paid on time.” (Young 2009). The facts of the case were that there were mistakes in the bills submitted by a contractor, Rutte, in the labour bills submitted to the customer. The client claimed clerical errors as a justification for holding back payments and interests under English laws. Any contract terms are void to the extent that they purport to exclude the right to statutory interest in relation to the debt, unless there is a substantial contractual remedy for late payment of the debt. According to Section 8 Part II of the Act, “Any contract terms are void to the extent that they purport to exclude the right to statutory interest in relation to the debt, unless there is a substantial contractual remedy for late payment of the debt.” (Contract terms relating to late payment of qualifying dents, 1998). The debtors took the excuse of errors in the invoices, not to pay the mandated interests on the delayed payments, but the Appellate Court, in which this case was held, took an opposite view and held that the plaintiff Ruttle was entitled to recover interests on the late payment of dues as per law. According to the verdict of the Court, there was absolutely no justification to support the theory that only perfect invoices, devoid of errors could be subject to imposition of the late payment interest. Even in other cases, as per the surrounding issues, the interest could be made payable to creditor. Thus, the courts held that the argument that incorrect invoices precluded the duty and responsibility to pay had been rejected. According to the views put forth by Courts, the party who was releasing the interest on the late payments could have checked invoices themselves, and made the payment on the basis of error-free invoices. There was no justification, according to law, by which interest payments could be withheld on the excuse of errors in the invoices. “A late payment is defined as where the agreed credit period given by the supplier to the purchaser has expired. If no credit period has been specified by the supplier the Act specifies a default period of 30 days after which interest will accumulate.” (Late payment of commercial debts (interest) act 1998, late payment of commercial debts regulations 2002. 2010). According to the plaintiffs, the contractors Ruttle, a sum of £5,743,971.70 was the total dues to the sub-contractor by the client, but out of this only £4,130,393.67 was paid. Ruttle raised a claim of £1,613,578 still due. The Court gave Ruttle consent to re-amend the claim details according to the Court verdict and also gave orders regarding settlement of costs of both parties. Arguments for and against: The main contentious issue in this case is that there had been a delay in the submission of claims of the party, and this was the excuse given by the clients in not making payment in time, but according to the Courts, the matter of delay was independent of the client’s liability to pay interests and release payment according to amended invoices. However, it is believed that Ruttle Company being under liquidation, and the rights being assigned to third party, who had entered into contract with liquidator, the rights under such an assignment contract is not just limited to cancellation of the settlement agreement, but goes on, including the element of compulsion and constraint, along with damages for tort crimes. Thus, it could be said that “The grant of the remedy of rescission and the requirement of counter-rescission was a matter for the court to decide at the time when it came to consider whether to grant that remedy.” (Ruttle plant Hire v Secretary of state for the environment and rural affairs, 2007). Coming finally to how this links with the aspect of assignment of contracts, it could be seen that there is no hard and fast rules regarding the validity or otherwise of assignment, and its legal implications. The Courts would consider rationale and genuineness of each case, and how this could impact upon the final verdict, and even in this case, the aspect of assignment is present. Although original sub-contractor had offered assignment of rights, this was not validated by creditor, on several technical grounds and also the fact that errors in the invoices do not automatically preclude their payments or payments of interests. According to the Courts, it is well within the jurisdiction of paying parties to amend invoices accordingly, and release the contracted payment and this is well within their jurisdiction. “If there is no specified credit period, but the previous practice has been that payment is made 30 days after the end of the month that the invoice is received, interest will begin to run on the day after the 30 days. If there is no specified credit period and no previous practice the default credit period is 30 days.” (Late payment of commercial debts (interest) act 1998, late payment of commercial debts regulations 2002. 2010). Ruttle Plant Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Rural Affairs [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 264- This case gives emphasis to that a paying group is not permitted to hold back all imbursement on the basis that computations in an statement are incorrect. The total, it believes, due should be recompensed while the exceptional balance is questioned or else the party may be interoperated to the risk of a reward of constitutional interest. According to the appellants, the contractors Ruttle, a total of £5,743,971.70 was the whole payables to the sub-contractor by the buyer, but out of this only £4,130,393.67 was rewarded. “The main claim for interest was made under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. Both parties agreed that the act applied, and that Ruttle was able to claim interest under that act on any money due. The problems arose over the question of when the interest started to run and at what rate.” (Redmond 2008). For consumers looking to keep away from paying constitutional awareness at the complete rate, imbursement should be through for the amount thought to be reasonably due. As there was no right under that overdue imbursement act to interest on the further 35% in anticipation of it was billed, it was hypothetically probable to argue interest in the Supreme Court Act of 1981, which is appropriate in every high court actions. And also in this Act of 1981there has to be grounds of act for the major amount previous to any interest that can be prized. And also as Ruttle Plant Ltd had not argued the extra 35% there were no grounds of act so that Ruttle Plant not succeeds again. The Supreme Court Act of 1981 to combine with alterations the highest (supreme) Court of Judicature Act of 1925 and additional performances connecting to the Supreme Court in United Kingdom and Wales and the organization of fairness within to cancel certain outdated or needless modification so connecting; to alter Part VIII of the Mental physical condition (health) Act 1959, the Courts-Martial (petitions) Act 1968, the Act relating to Arbitration in the 1979 and the rule connecting to district courts; and for associated functions. In anticipation of the overdue Payment of profitable Debts (Interest) Act 1998 arrived. This case speaks about arguments regarding recompense of interest rates on delayed recompense for commercial debts under the statutory norms laid down by the Late Payment of. Act. And also at the same time the Act provides various procedures for the succeed debts. Like section 5 of the Act deals with reduction of constitutional interest in the case of the late payment. “ This section applies where, by reason of any conduct of the supplier, the interests of justice require that statutory interest should be remitted in whole or part in respect of a period for which it would otherwise run in relation to a qualifying debt. 2) If the interests of justice require that the supplier should receive no statutory interest for a period, statutory interest shall not run for that period. 3) If the interests of justice require that the supplier should receive statutory interest at a reduced rate for a period, statutory interest shall run at such rate as meets the justice of the case for that period.” (FAQ about late payment law, 2007). And also Section 5(4) of the given act talks about the various requirement needed to grant the reductions. Section 5(5) deals with conduct comprise any work or exclusion. The Supreme Court Act of 1981 altered all that. Provision could be involved into an agreement which permitted for interest to be remunerated at a charge of 8% over the Bank of U K base charge in the occurrence of late recompense or payment of a profitable debt, although simply if the group underlying agreement was quiet on interest or did not offer a “considerable preparation” for late recompense. In this case, the court said that, it would create no logic at all if the overdue Payment of profitable Debts (Interest) Act of 1998 needed the invoice or statement to be ideal prior to interest might run. And also the paying group in this case is permitted not to provide any sum or amount which is logically and authentically in argument or has not yet turned out to be unpaid. “This was an extremely complex case with four reported judgments. It does, however, make the legal position on interest much clearer. The courts will not award interest on sums due for goods or services from a date before the claim is made, and made clearly. Furthermore, the courts will not award interest at the high rate of 8% over base when the claimant shares responsibility for the delay in payment.” (Redmond 2008). Arguments for and against: The overdue recompense of Commercial amount overdue (Interest) Act 1998 is the law which puts in an expression as to recompense of overdue or late recompense interest into your contract by means of consumer. A person cannot leave out this obligation in his own conditions. The Late Payment of Commercial Debts policy 2002 is the constitutional tool which provides us with various rights to overdue recompense reward and always one of them invoices is remunerated not on time. Be cautious at the time if the invoices were excessively high at first. In Ruttle Plant Hire v Secretary of State for the Environment Farming and Rural Affairs the adjudicator decreased the interest price to foundation plus 2% in a allege where Ruttle had originally invoiced excessively to a great extent . British Energy Power and Trading Ltd v Credit Suisse [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 413 The next aspect in the matter of assignment would be to take up the case of British Energy Power and Trading Ltd v. Credit Suisse (2008) in which the dispute arose regarding restructuring of loan agreement by parties. “The effect of the restructuring was that the banks agreed to compromise their claims under the July 2000 credit agreement by writing off about "340 million of principal debt due from the third claimant and agreeing to a new credit facility of "150 million. In return the British Energy group provided 76.6 million of new shares, "20 million of bonds and security of various kinds, and also granted both a share option and asset option.” (Recent developments in finance litigation: Restriction on sub-participation, 2010). Arguments for and against: One of the assignees, after Bank of America, Credit Suisse disclaimed their liability stating that they were not parties, but merely assignees of Barclays Bank. However, the Courts felt that Credit Suisse had entered into the option concurrence through Barclays, that Credit Suisse was a party to the option agreements and was held by the restrictions in, among other, Clause 31. Thus, CS was held responsible although they were only assignees and not part of original contract. The common thread that flows between these three cases is that of assignment of rights that are in the first place not considered to be assignable. This is especially true in the case of letter of credits and banking transactions which need to be routed only through banks or through their authorized agencies of banks, and not third parties. Thus, although these transactions may not be illegitimate or illegal per se, the question of their enforcement may not be along expected lines. In many cases, however, Courts have held that assignment could not be validated, especially relating to credit instruments like Letters of Credits, etc, since it would defeat the very purpose of the contract, in that a non-banking company or firm could gain credit or acceptance of banking transactions, which goes against the letter and spirit of the credit instruments itself. Again, it is also witnessed that while assignments and devolution of rights by the creditor through a string of transactions could be possible, the enforcement of claims at a later stage, upon acceptance and reaffirmation of debts may be a length process, which may not be in the best interests of debtors or creditors. For one thing, it is seen that often the principal debtor is kept in the dark about assignments of rights and prerogatives of assets and credit instruments that are, negotiable in the ordinary course of business, and thus, eventually the creditor who raises the payment and settlement of debts may be a total stranger and unknown to the debtors. Under such circumstances, it is quite possible that the debtor may refuse to make payment to the claimant, even if he were to be authorized trustee of the holder of such assets or instruments. In the Vandepitte Case, the question arouses as to whether the driver of the vehicle, whom with the permission of the insured person,(her father), drove the vehicle which sustained a complete accident, the daughter could sue for insurance claim. The Court in this case said that the assignment of rights under the insurance policy had not been subrogated to the daughter, nor was her name mentioned in any place, as beneficiary or insured, thus, the assignment in this case was deemed by the learned Judges to be void, and the insurance company was right in not making payments to the daughter. However, the Vandepitte Case occurred during 1933, thus almost eight decades have passed since the judgment of this case. During these years, business and commerce has undergone sea of changes, and business has become more complex and onerous, leading to more liability and risks to all parties. Thus, the framework of the laws that were prevailing 75 years ago cannot be pertinent or relevant in assignment laws of today. In the case of case of Barbados Trust Company v. Bank of Zambia, (BoZ), it was held that Bank of America (BoA) were one of the earliest assignees of the debt incurred by BTC, and through a series of assignments, the debt passed on to a non-banking company, who sued for recovery of the debt. It was held by the Honorable Courts that BoZ could not sue against this debt, since, firstly the principal debtor was not aware of the proceedings and secondly, their consent was not obtained. Under such circumstances, the legal position of assignment was not duly carried out and, it would not be wrong to state, that in the eyes of law, the assignment had not taken place. Under such circumstances, assignment was on untenable grounds and unsubstantial. This fact that it was reiterated in this 2007 case was that the appeal made by the BoZ was dismissed and it was held by the Courts that the ability of not being assigned did not apply to debts that were acknowledged and accepted by the parties in question and also, based on its true construct, and were the true permission to allow devolution of rights and claims had not been given. Under such circumstances, however the case of assignment did not hold good. However, in all fairness, in the assignments of rights so far are concerned, it would be well within the meaning of law to correctly understand the true intentions of the parties and their concurrence on the case. Whether the intentions of the parties was to shirk their responsibility and duties, citing non admission in the earlier contract, or the presence of errors of minor kind. Considering these aspects, it would be well within the ambit of law to judge each aspect of assignment cases on the strength of its merits and demerits and to award justice as deemed fit according to the dictates of law and its enforcement. Thus, there could be no hard and fast rules, not could it always be possible to take recourse to judicial precedents, or previously decided cases, while dealing with assignments and its many legal ramifications. CHAPTER 3 British Energy Power and Trading Ltd v Credit Suisse [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 413- In this case that anywhere a bank comes into alternative (option) contracts in division as mediator for any further banks engaging in a syndicated refinancing deal, it was a query of structure of the provision of the alternative contracts whether "the purchaser" was that stock as safety trustee, or the other investments banks, or together. In this case the actions apprehensive the Eggborough coal blazed energy place in North Yorkshire. The question raised in this case is that whether Credit Suisse could continue by means of a projected takeover arrangement of Eggborough.The applicants were businesses in the British Energy group. The third applicant was the proprietor of the company and resources of the energy station. The power position was obtained by the British Energy power group in the year of 2000 March for the amount of £646 million. Subsequently it was re-financed in three months by an amount of £550 million credit advanced to the applicant number third party to the contract by a syndicate of banks on the conditions of a credit contract. Subsequently British Energy power met financial trouble, follow-on in a universal reformation of its funds. With regard to the power station, in the year 2004 September four contracts were implemented: an altered and restated description of the first credit contract, a share alternative contract, an asset alternative (option) contract and an altered and restated intercreditor action. It will lead to the breach of contract in the part of British Energy power group. The result of the reformation was that the banks decided to negotiate their allegation under the credit contract in July the year 2000 by lettering off on the subject of 340 million of primary debt payable from the third applicant and approving to a novel credit capability of 150 million. A disagreement occurs, which was intended for the events, out of a projected sub-participation contract among Credit Suisse and the second party and the next party to the contract third respondent’s organization. They had been integrated for the function of combining a variety of sub-participation privileges with regard to the services established under the contract. The disagreement among the parties apprehensive the amount to which sub-participation was allowed under the conditions of the alternative contracts. The applicants sought a statement as to the building of clause 31 which offered. ” The claimants sought a declaration as to the construction of clause 31 which provided, inter alia, as follows: 31.2 Subject to Clause 31.1.1, during the Close Period the Buyer may not enter into any agreement or other arrangement: 31.2.1 That relates to the exercise of any of its rights under this Agreement; or 31.2.2 to assign or transfer or declare a trust of the benefit of or in any other way dispose of all or any of the Option Shares after an Option Completion Date." (Davis & Millar 2008). In this case the Court of Appeal was inquired to infer pre-emption conditions in two alternative contracts. These contracts had been indicated by a party who was together Safety Trustee and mediator for a consortium of lenders, by means of the major query being whether the pre-emption boundaries apply merely to the Trustee, merely to the lenders or to equally the Trustee and consortium of the lenders. In judgment that the limitations apply to equally in these two contracts. In the entire situation, which built-in a thought of the language of the contracts, the commercial reason of the section and the nearby conditions, the Court of Appeal determined that Barclays had come into the option contracts in some way as mediator for the any of the other banks and also as safety (security) Trustee. Admission into the dealings by means of Ampere would amount to a violation of Credit Suisse's responsibilities under the contracts. CHAPTER 4 Conclusion: The aspect of assignment in breach of prohibition of assignment of rights under English law makes interesting reading, albeit it is fraught with complexities. While law does understand the baseline fact that assignment of devolution of rights against dues need to be duly corroborated with consent and adherence to due process of law, it is also seen that Courts may be constrained to take different views depending upon the surroundings of the case, and its many ramifications, commercial or otherwise. Thus, while in the first selected 2007 case of Barbados Trust Co. (BTC) v. Bank of Zambia (BoZ) the classic judgement upholding the prohibition was awarded, it is evident that in next case of Ruttle Plant Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment and Rural Affairs [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 264- the decision was different and perhaps a strict interpretation of the BTC decision was not enforced, albeit the case was quite dissimilar. Finally, coming to the judgement in British Energy Power and Trading Ltd, the Courts held Credit Suisse involved although they were not part of the original financial contract. Thus, it would not neither fair nor judicious to lay hard and fast rules towards assignments and its various aspects and a lot would depend upon the circumstances of each individual case and the perspectives taken by respective Courts. While justice delayed is justice denied in legal terminology, justice enforced need to match with the facts of cases and the actions/inactions of parties. Reference List Allcock, B., 1983. Restrictions on the assignment of contractual rights. [Online] Jstor. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4506560 [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Assignment-avoiding the pitfalls: Legal briefing from the commercial group, 2009. [Online] Walker Morris. Available at: http://www.walkermorris.co.uk/content.aspx?id=749 [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Contract terms relating to late payment of qualifying dents, 1998. [Online] OPSI. Available at: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980020_en_2 [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Davis, E. & Millar, S., 2008. United Kingdom: Recent developments in finance litigation: Restriction on sub-participation. [Online] Mondaq. Available at: http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=64460 [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Duhaime, L., 2010. Part 2: Privity, consent and the “reasonable man”. [Online] Duhaime.Org. Available at: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResources/Contracts/LawArticle-87/Part-2-Privity-Consent-and-the-Reasonable-Man.aspx [Accessed 16 July 2010]. England and Wales court of appeal (civil division) decisions, 2007. [Online] Bailli. Available at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/148.html [Accessed 16 July 2010]. FAQ about late payment law, 2007. [Online] Debtclaims. Com. Available at: http://www.debtclaims.com/latepaymentlaw/latepaymentlegislation.php?article=22 [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Grene, C., 2007. “Declaration of trust” and contractual assignment: New court of appeal guidance for financial institutions. [Online] Brid & Brid. Available at: http://www.twobirds.com/English/News/Articles/Pages/Declaration_of_trust.aspx [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Handyside QC, R., 2009. Recommendation (practitioners’ guides): General commercial. [Online] Fountain Court. Available at: http://www.fountaincourt.co.uk/richard-handyside-qc/ [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Late payment of commercial debts (interest) act 1998, late payment of commercial debts regulations 2002. 2010. [Online] Compact Law. Available at: http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-legal-articles/late-payment-commercial-debts-act-1998.html [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Redmond, J., 2008. A matter of some interest Ruttle vs secretary of state for the environment. [Online] Building co.uk. Available at: http://www.building.co.uk/legal/a-matter-of-some-interest-ruttle-vs-secretary-of-state-for-the-environment/3121508.article [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Recent developments in finance litigation: Restriction on sub-participation, 2010. [Online] The Free Library. Available at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Recent+Developments+In+Finance+Litigation:+Restriction+On...-a0182350199 [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Ruttle plant Hire vs Secretary of state for the environment [Online] Lexis Web.co.uk. Available at: http://lexisweb.co.uk/Cases/2007/december/Ruttle-Plant-Hire-v-Secretary-of-State-for-the-Environment-and-Rural-Affairs [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Young, A., 2009. Ruttle plant hire ltd v secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs. [Online] Supply Management.Com. Available at: http://www.supplymanagement.com/law/court-reports/2009/ruttle-plant-hire-ltd-v-secretary-of-state/ [Accessed 16 July 2010]. Read More