The legal concepts for the both the terms have to applied carefully because of the liabilities and the
benefits attached to it therein.
In succession both benefit and burden travels together but the liabilities get crystallised when it
reaches the value of the asset.
However in assignment, benefits under the contract can be assigned without the consent of the
other party and burden under the contract cannot be assigned without the consent of other party.
Let’s explain it by an example. Suppose, a son legitimately succeeds to the property of his father
after his death and now from the property that the son has inherited, he will be liable to pay the
debts and liabilities of his father owned during his life time. However, the catch is that if the debt
owed by his father exceed the value of the property then the son will not be called upon to pay the
excess or extra liability. In other words the liability of the son will be limited to the extent of the
property inherited to him.
Interestingly, in assignment only the benefit travels and not the burden !! which means in
assignment only the benefit of the contract can be assigned but not the liabilities there under.
Why this so and what’s the reason for this difference in legal theory ??
This is because when liability is assigned , third party gets involved and a debtor cannot relieve
himself of his liability to creditor by assigning to someone else his obligation to repay the debt.
Similarly , if a creditor assigns the benefit of a promise, he hereby entitles the assignee to release
the debt from the debtor.
However , please note carefully where the benefit is entwined with a liability or when a
consideration ( personal ) have been executed into the making of the contract then the benefit
cannot be assigned.