The Agency now sues Bostwick Co. for $950 under the assignment. Who will prevail? Explain.
Anne, who was unemployed, registered with the Speedy Employment Agency. A contract was then made under which Anne, in consideration of such position as the Agency would obtain for her, agreed to pay the Agency one-half of her first month’s salary. The contract also contained an assignment by Anne to the Agency of one-half of her first month’s salary. Two weeks later, the Agency obtained a permanent position for Anne with the Bostwick Co. at a monthly salary of $1,900. The agency also notified Bostwick of the assignment by Anne. At the end of the first month, Bostwick paid Anne her salary in full. Anne then quit and disappeared. The Agency now sues Bostwick Co. for $950 under the assignment. Who will prevail? Explain.
As compared to Company SE, Company B would not have any number or fine because Company B was not present at the time of the deal between Individual A and Company SE. Individual A also had no employment agreement with Company B.
The wages should be attributed to the assignor's validity of the assignment. The existence of a contract to which the assignor is a party is necessary for the legitimacy of the appointment. Whereas, the future right to money, such as compensation that is to be received under an established work contract, is assignable.
A supposed assignment of a right that is intended to occur under a contract not in effect only serves as a pledge as it happens to allocate the right.
Company B will not prevail any amount or fine as opposed by Company SE because Company B was not present at the time of the contract between Individual A and Company S.
Also, Individual A had no agreement of employment with Company B. The wages should be assignable according to the assignor validity of the assignment.