Assignment. Rogers agreed with Newton to do the plumbing work as a subcontractor on a construction project. Their contract stipulated that Rogers was to receive 22,100 in three installments. Rogers secured a loan from the Merchants & Farmers Bank of Dumas for 15,500 to pay for the necessary expenses he would incur when he began work and before he had received his first installment from Newton. In return for the borrowed money, Rogers assigned to the bank his rights in the contract he had formed with Newton. On February 11, the bank sent Newton notice of the assignment and asked Newton to make his payment checks payable to Rogers and the bank jointly. Newton agreed in a letter to the bank to do this. On March 12, however, Newton wrote a check for 7,085 payable to Rogers only. Rogers completed the work for Newton and had paid all his expenses except for that owed to one of his suppliers, Southern Pipe and Supply Co Rogers eventually defaulted on his payments to the bank, and the bank sued Newton for the balance on the note. Newton could not avoid his obligation to the assignee of the note (the bank), but he claimed that he should not be responsible for the bill to Southern Pipe and Supply. He claimed that Rogers's assignment of his contract with Newton to the bank obligated the bank to assume Rogers's duties under the contract (including payments to all suppliers) and that the bank should therefore pay the bill owed to Southern Pipe and Supply. Did Rogers's assignment of his rights in the contract with Newton include a delegation of his duties under the contract as well? Discuss.
Quick Reply
