A subcontractor entered into an agreement with a main contractor to carry out infrastructure works for a municipality but did not receive all of its money. The subcontractor demanded payment directly from the municipality and contended that the main contractor assigned to the subcontractor its rights to funds from the municipality.
The Court rejected the claim and held that the starting point in all sub-contracting agreements is that there are two contractual engagements: between the customer and the main contractor, and between the main contractor and the subcontractors. In other words, the starting point is that there is no contractual rivalry between the customer and the subcontractors, and so was the case at hand. An assignment of a right does not have to be in writing and may be done verbally or by way of conduct, but in this case, the subcontractor did not show any indications of that.