Second, in some legal systems, courts have found that a transfer of interests in a party has effectively transferred the party`s interest in the underlying agreement or asset, even without direct and indirect language (the transfer of a higher-level enterprise being effectively considered a deception, to terminate the assignment clause).  But most of the cases that follow this “minority view” seem to lead to this result by the existence of specific language that prohibits both direct and indirect attributions or transfers and, in the absence of such a language, they refuse to extend the scope of the anti-assignment clause.  The “majority opinion” appears to be that “transfer restrictions must explicitly state that they apply to upstream entities” or not.  And the courts that follow the majority opinion appear to require more than direct or indirect language to establish that transmission limitations apply specifically to upstream businesses. Although H-B-S Partnership v. Aircoa Hospitality Services, Inc., 114 p.2d 306 (N.M. 2005), H-B-S Partnership v. Aircoa Hospitality Services, Inc., 114 p.2d 306 (N.M. 2005), although it is often argued that a limitation to direct or indirect divestitures automatically implies a transfer of equity to the next level. Although H-B-S Partnership was the case where the sale of the “rear-rear part of a party was an `indirect transfer` that triggered a right of pre-emption”, the contract in question included not only “direct or indirect” transfers, but also “involuntary” transfers, transfers by “merger” or “execution” and “the transfer of a capital interest in a partner”. if the transmission results in a change of control.  In addition to defining principles for determining what he did and what he did not do, he also established protocols on how the Sangha should resolve disputes on this issue when they arose. It appears that, despite the pervasiveness of provisions purporting to restrict direct and “indirect” assignments, there is no clear general answer to the question whether an indirect transfer of an asset by a party takes place only because there is a change of control over that party.
On the contrary, each agreement must be analysed in the light of all its provisions. Nevertheless, certain general legal principles seem to determine the interpretation of these clauses. But even if you evaluate the results of your own actions, you can`t just take your own ideas of “what works” as a trusted standard. Finally, you can easily side with your greed, aversion or deception and lower your standards. To resist this tendency, the Buddha recommends that you also care about the views of the sages, as you will never grow until you allow your standards to be challenged by them….