‘Contract cheating’, whereby students pay companies to complete assignments on their behalf, threatens to seriously undermine higher education standards. Philip M. Newton and Michael J. Draper consider what might be done to tackle this issue, including the Quality Assurance Agency’s suggestion of deploying the UK Fraud Act (2006). While questions remains as to whether the Fraud Act is likely to prove effective in prosecuting companies that offer contract cheating services, it may be that other legal approaches can be adopted. Additionally, more robust assessment designs and university regulations, together with renewed programmes of stakeholder education, can mitigate the threats posed by contract cheating.
University students are paying other people to complete their assessments, a process known as ‘contract cheating’. Here, we examine the impact of research on strategies to tackle the issue. This is a fast-evolving, currently understudied topic and utilising high-quality research is important because of the serious implications of contract cheating. For example, some of the most important roles in society may be undertaken by people who have not personally demonstrated the necessary learning. Engineers, doctors, midwives, lawyers, nurses, judges, dentists, etc. can all buy assignments; contract cheating offers a bypass of the gatekeeping function of university assessment, undermining the value of a university degree.
Contract cheating scandals are regularly covered by the mainstream media. Stories highlight the mismatch between what companies say they do and the consequences of what they actually do, as well as the bold advertising used in public, legitimising activity. However, we don’t really know how many students are using contract cheating services (although a forthcoming research project will give us an idea; in Australia, at least). Many academics have anecdotal stories, horror stories mostly, of students using these services. Chat forums acting as a sort of Tripadvisor for the industry are full of similar tales.
Image credit: Giant Gavel by Sam Howzit. This work is licensed under a CC BY 2.0 license.
What we do know is fairly hair-raising, though. Almost any type of assessment can be purchased, and, as our forthcoming research will show, hundreds of websites offer these services. Although a range of services are offered, a quick Google search shows that most sites have the word ‘essay’ in their name, making it fairly clear where most of their business comes from. Services offered do not cost a lot, and have a rapid turnaround. When students were asked how (if at all) other students should be penalised for using these services, they chose only modest penalties: namely that any purchased assignment should be failed. This is in stark contrast to the UK higher education sector standard, which is for students to be withdrawn.
So what could be done about this? There are many ways this issue could be addressed, with four common, overlapping themes: assessment design, stakeholder education, university regulations, and the law. The use of a legal approach was endorsed by the UK regulator of higher education, the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in the summer of 2016, which specifically suggested the 2006 UK Fraud Act be used to tackle UK-based companies offering contract cheating services.
To determine whether or not the UK Fraud Act might, in fact, be used successfully, our research compared the common business practices of the contract cheating services, including their advertising and terms and conditions, against the Act. In our academic view, the Fraud Act is not likely to be effective in prosecuting companies that offer contract cheating services. Disclaimers commonly found in the terms and conditions often assert that assignments written by companies are not to be used as students’ own work, but rather as ‘model answers’. Although some of the aforementioned media reports and, particularly, some of the companies’ advertising methods often appear in direct conflict with these terms and conditions, we believe this would still not be sufficient to deploy the Fraud Act (although it might be grounds for using Trading Standards or other consumer protection laws).
Following that research, we proposed a new law which would create an offence of strict liability on the sale of essays, subject to a due diligence defence which would put the burden of proof on the ‘essay mill’ company to establish legitimate use rather than on the prosecuting authority to establish wrongdoing through ‘intent’. The need to demonstrate intent is a major barrier to legal enforcement. Strict liability offences are regulatory offences deployed, usually by Parliament-made (statute) law, in areas of significant public interest in which it is important that the law act as a deterrent to regulate behaviour. Specific examples include sections 143 and 87 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 – driving uninsured and driving without a full licence: both of these offences are ones of strict liability which can be committed without any intent on the part of the driver. It would therefore be appropriate to include a strict liability offence in relation to essay mills in the Higher Education and Research Bill.
Again, this is a fast-evolving issue. An amendment to the current Higher Education and Research Bill was tabled, proposing to make essay mills illegal, although this still required the demonstration of ‘intent’. It was debated in the House of Lords on 25 January, with our research (here and here) directly cited by Lord Storey of Liverpool in support of the amendment. However, the government response was to propose greater emphasis on guidance from, and for, universities and other stakeholders. The amendment was not supported in its current form.
Then, Jo Johnson, Minister of State for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, last week issued a statement calling on universities to do more to stop students buying custom written essays online, saying:
“This form of cheating is unacceptable and every university should have strong policies and sanctions in place to detect and deal with it”.
The Minister asked for guidance aimed at universities, and information for students to help combat the use of these services as well as other forms of plagiarism. The Minister also called for guidance to include tough new penalties for those who make use of essay mills websites, as well as the need to educate students about the potentially significant negative impacts on their future career should they be caught cheating. This would seem to show less enthusiasm for a change in the law, although Department of Education briefings to the media did appear to leave the door open for a legal approach.
This issue is too important to be cast into the graveyard of ‘guidance’. Proposals need backing up with regulation, whether in law or in the QAA’s requirements. Indeed, the QAA was specifically mentioned by Johnson as being “tasked to take action against the online advertising of these services and to work with international agencies to deal with this problem” – we sincerely hope this will result in universities being required to use, at least in part, assessment methodologies that cannot be contracted out so quickly and cheaply.
This brings us to other means by which contract cheating might be tackled: stakeholder education, assessment design, and university regulations. These need more research. The aforementioned project in Australia will examine a relationship (or not) between ‘authentic assessment’ and contract cheating. Authentic assessment is a term used to describe assessment methods that are more reflective of the ways in which students will actually use the knowledge they learn; practical exams, face-to-face assessments, etc. One view is that such assessment methods are harder to contract out.
On university regulations, Michael J. Draper has moved to introduce a regulation that prohibits the simple commissioning of an essay, to reinforce that commissioning an essay from a third party is considered an academic offence in its own right (in addition to the submission of an unattributed commissioned essay). In other words, the simple act of asking one of these companies to write an assignment would be an academic offence. Whilst evidencing such activity is difficult, this is seen as a statement of intent as well as a principle with deterrent value.
In addition to a regulatory framework that reinforces these values, students can be supported in their learning development through instructional tools. One such support tool is an online, interactive, customised module developed as part of the Skills for Learning, Skills for Life project run by the Swansea Academy for Inclusivity and Learner Success and the Centre for Academic Success, in conjunction with universities in Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Feedback from pilots undertaken strongly indicates that students engage with these resources most effectively when supported by their academic tutors, either through bespoke or timetabled sessions or when referenced in student handbooks and teaching materials at key points of modules.
Finally, there is the possibility of a coordinated approach across Europe. The Council of Europe has established the ETINED platform to tackle corruption in education, including a stream dedicated to contract cheating. The platform will produce guidance for member states aimed at tackling the issue. If you aren’t au fait with the details of European politics, the UK will remain a member of the Council of Europe after Brexit. However, of interest is that the UK is one of the few member states not to formally send a representative to the ETINED platform, despite many UK academics (Philip Newton included) appearing to give expert evidence to the project.
In summary, research into contract cheating has made an impact and will continue to do so. Hopefully this will result in it being harder for students to submit assignments they have paid someone else to do, thereby upholding the quality and standards of higher education.
This blog post is based on the authors’ article, ‘Are Essay Mills committing fraud? An analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 Fraud Act (UK)’, published in the International Journal for Educational Integrity (DOI: 10.1007/s40979-017-0014-5).
This article gives the views of the authors, and not the position of the LSE Impact Blog, nor of the London School of Economics. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.
About the authors
Philip M. Newton is the Director of Learning and Teaching at the Swansea University Medical School. He teaches neuroscience and educational theory to students in the school and was the 2015 BMA Cymru Swansea Teacher of the Year. His research interests are in the area of evidence-based education, particularly academic integrity, and he is the programme director for the Research in Health Professions Education (RiHPE) professional doctorate programme. @newtonsneurosci
Michael J. Draper is Associate Professor in College of Law and Criminology, Swansea University; and Director of the Swansea Academy Inclusivity and Learner Success. He is also Chair of the University Regulations and Student Cases Board.
"Assignee" redirects here. For the racehorse, see Assignee (horse).
An assignment (Latin cessio) is a term used with similar meanings in the law of contracts and in the law of real estate. In both instances, it encompasses the transfer of rights held by one party, the assignor, to another party, the assignee. It can also be a transfer of a benefit, including an equitable interest, according to established rules (at common law or in equity). The rights may be vested or contingent. The details of the assignment determines some additional rights and liabilities (or duties).
Typically a third party is involved in a contract with the assignor, and the contract is, in effect, transferred to the assignee. For example, a borrower borrows money from a local bank. The local bank receives a mortgage note and can thereafter transfer that note to a financial institution in exchange for a lump-sum of cash, thereby assigning the right to receive payment from the borrower to another entity. Mortgages and lending contracts are relatively amenable to assignment since the lendor's duties are relatively limited; other contracts which involve personal duties such as legal counsel may not be assignable.
The related concept of novation is not assignment. Rather than assigning only the rights to another party, novation involves the replacement of the original party with a new party or the replacement of the original contract with a new contract. Since novation creates a new contract, it requires the consent of all parties, but assignment does not require the consent of the nonassigning party, but in the case of assignment, the consent of the nonassigning party may be required by a contractual provision.
The assignment does not necessarily have to be in writing; however, the assignment agreement must show an intent to transfer rights. The effect of a valid assignment is to extinguish privity (in other words, contractual relationship, including right to sue) between the assignor and the third-party obligor and create privity between the obligor and the assignee.
Liabilities and duties
Unless the contractual agreement states otherwise, the assignee typically does not receive more rights than the assignor, and the assignor may remain liable to the original counterparty for the performance of the contract. The assignor often delegates duties in addition to rights to the assignee, but the assignor may remain ultimately responsible.
However, in the United States, there are various laws that limit the liability of the assignee, often to facilitate credit, as assignees are typically lenders. Notable examples include a provision in the Truth in Lending Act and provisions in the Consumer Leasing Act and the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act.
In other cases, the contract may be a negotiable instrument in which the person receiving the instrument may become a holder in due course, which is similar to an assignee except that issues, such as lack of performance, by the assignor may not be a valid defense for the obligor. As a response, the United States Federal Trade Commission promulgated Rule 433, formally known as the "Trade Regulation Rule Concerning Preservation of Consumers' Claims and Defenses", which "effectively abolished the [holder in due course] doctrine in consumer credit transactions". In 2012, the commission reaffirmed the regulation.
Assignment of contract rights
Assignment of rights under a contract is the complete transfer of the rights to receive the benefits accruing to one of the parties to that contract. For example, if Party A contracts with Party B to sell Party A's car to Party B for $10, Party A can later assign the benefits of the contract - i.e., the right to be paid $10 - to Party C. In this scenario, Party A is the obligee/assignor, Party B is an obligor, and Party C is the assignee. Such an assignment may be donative (essentially given as a gift), or it may be contractually exchanged for consideration. It is important to note, however, that Party C is not a third party beneficiary, because the contract itself was not made for the purpose of benefitting Party C. When an assignment is made, the assignment always takes place after the original contract was formed. An Assignment only transfers the rights/benefits to a new owner. The obligations remain with the previous owner. Compare Novation.
When assignment will be permitted
The common law favors the freedom of assignment, so an assignment will generally be permitted unless there is an express prohibition against assignment in the contract. Where assignment is thus permitted, the assignor need not consult the other party to the contract. An assignment cannot have any effect on the duties of the other party to the contract, nor can it reduce the possibility of the other party receiving full performance of the same quality. Certain kinds of performance, therefore, cannot be assigned, because they create a unique relationship between the parties to the contract. For example, the assignment of a legal malpractice claim is void since an assignee would be a stranger to the attorney-client relationship, who was owed no duty by the attorney and would imperil the sanctity of the highly confidential and fiduciary relationship existing between attorney and client.
Torts are not assignable as public policy, and various statutes may prohibit assignment in certain instances. In addition, the Restatement (Second) of Contracts lists prohibitions in §317(2)(a) based upon the effect to the nonassigning party (obligor), with similar prohibitions in the Uniform Commercial Code §2-210. For example, UCC §2-210 states the following:
|“||Unless otherwise agreed all rights of either seller or buyer can be assigned except where the assignment would materially change the duty of the other party, or increase materially the burden or risk imposed on him by his contract, or impair materially his chance of obtaining return performance. A right to damages for breach of the whole contract or a right arising out of the assignor's due performance of his entire obligation can be assigned despite agreementotherwise [sic].||”|
Requirements for an effective assignment
For assignment to be effective, it must occur in the present. No specific language is required to make such an assignment, but the assignor must make some clear statement of intent to assign clearly identified contractual rights to the assignee. A promise to assign in the future has no legal effect. Although this prevents a party from assigning the benefits of a contract that has not yet been made, a court of equity may enforce such an assignment where an established economic relationship between the assignor and the assignee raised an expectation that the assignee would indeed form the appropriate contract in the future.
A contract may contain a non-assignment clause, which prohibits the assignment of specific rights and some various rights, or of the entire contract, to another. However, such a clause does not necessarily destroy the power of either party to make an assignment. Instead, it merely gives the other party the ability to sue for breach of contract if such an assignment is made. However, an assignment of a contract containing such a clause will be ineffective if the assignee knows of the non-assignment clause, or if the non-assignment clause specifies that "all assignments are void".
Two other techniques to prevent the assignment of contracts are rescission clauses or clauses creating a condition subsequent. The former would give the other party to the contract the power to rescind the contract if an assignment is made; the latter would rescind the contract automatically in such circumstances.
Requirement of a writing
There are certain situations in which the assignment must be in writing.
- Assignment of wages; additionally, statutes may prohibit this assignment
- Assignment of any interest in real property
- Assignment of choses in action worth over $5,000
A parallel concept to assignment is delegation, which occurs when one party transfers his duties or liabilities under a contract to another. A delegation and an assignment can be accomplished at the same time, although a non-assignment clause may also bar delegation.
Legal remedies may be available if the nonassigning party's rights are affected by the assignment.
Assignments made for consideration are irrevocable, meaning that the assignor permanently gives up the legal right to take back the assignment once it has been made. Donative assignments, on the other hand, are generally revocable, either by the assignor giving notice to the assignee, taking performance directly from the obligor, or making a subsequent assignment of the same right to another. There are some exceptions to the revocability of a donative assignment:
- The assignment can not be revoked if the obligor has already performed
- The assignment can not be revoked if the assignee has received a token chose (chose being derived from the French word for "thing", as in a chose of action) - a physical object that signifies a right to collect, such as a stock certificate or the passbook to a savings account.
- The assignment can not be revoked if the assignor has set forth in writing the assignment of a simple chose - a contract right embodied in any form of token.
- Estoppel can prevent the revocation of a donative assignment if the assignee changed their position in reliance on the assignment.
Finally, the death or declaration of bankruptcy by the assignor will automatically revoke the assignment by operation of law.
Breach and defenses
A cause of action for breach on the part of the obligor lies with the assignee, who will hold the exclusive right to commence a cause of action for any failure to perform or defective performance. At this stage, because the assignee "stands in the shoes" of the assignor, the obligor can raise any defense to the contract that the obligor could have raised against the assignor. Furthermore, the obligor can raise against the assignee counterclaims and setoffs that the obligor had against the assignor. For example, suppose that A makes a contract to paint B's house in exchange for $500. A then assigns the right to receive the $500 to C, to pay off a debt owed to C. However, A does such a careless job painting the house that B has to pay another painter $400 to correct A's work. If C sues B to collect the debt, B can raise his counterclaim for the expenses caused by the poor paint job, and can reduce the amount owed to C by that $400, leaving only $100 to be collected.
When the assignor makes the assignment, he makes with it an implied warranty that the right to assign was not subject to defenses. If the contract had a provision that made the assignment ineffective, the assignee could sue the assignor for breach of this implied warranty. Similarly, the assignee could also sue under this theory if the assignor wrongfully revoked the assignment.
Occasionally, an unscrupulous assignor will assign exactly the same rights to multiple parties (usually for some consideration). In that case, the rights of the assignee depend on the revocability of the assignment, and on the timing of the assignments relative to certain other actions.
In a quirk left over from the common law, if the assignment was donative, the last assignee is the true owner of the rights. However, if the assignment was for consideration, the first assignee to actually collect against the assigned contract is the true owner of the rights. Under the modern American rule, now followed in most U.S. jurisdictions, the first assignor with equity (i.e. the first to have paid for the assignment) will have the strongest claim, while remaining assignees may have other remedies. In some countries, the rights of the respective assignees are determined by the old common law rule in Dearle v Hall.
- Earlier donative assignees for whom the assignment was revocable (because it had not been made irrevocable by any of the means listed above) have no cause of action whatsoever.
- Earlier donative assignees for whom the assignment was made irrevocable can bring an action for the tort of conversion, because the assignment was technically their property when it was given to a later assignee.
- Later assignees for consideration have a cause of action for breaches of the implied warranty discussed above.
Special rules for assignment of certain rights
See also: Rule in Dumpor's Case and Privity of estate
Real property rights can be assigned just as any other contractual right. However, special duties and liabilities attach to transfers of the right to possess property. With an assignment, the assignor transfers the complete remainder of the interest to the assignee. The assignor must not retain any sort of reversionary interest in the right to possess. The assignee's interest must abut the interest of the next person to have the right to possession. If any time or interest is reserved by a tenant assignor then the act is not an assignment, but is instead a sublease.
The liability of the assignee depends upon the contract formed when the assignment takes place. However, in general, the assignee has privity of estate with a lessor. With privity of estate comes the duty on the part of the assignee to perform certain obligations under covenant, e.g. pay rent. Similarly, the lessor retains the obligations to perform on covenants to maintain or repair the land.
If the assignor agrees to continue paying rent to the lessor and subsequently defaults, the lessor can sue both the assignor under the original contract signed with the lessor as well as the assignee because by taking possession of the property interest, the assignee has obliged himself to perform duties under covenant such as the payment of rent.
Unlike a Novation where consent of both the lessor and lesse is required for the third party to assume all obligations and liabilities of the original lessee, an assignment does not always need the consent of all parties. If the contract terms state specifically that the lessor's consent is not needed to assign the contract, then the lesee can assign the contract to whomever the lesee wants to.
Absent language to the contrary, a tenant may assign their rights to an assignee without the landlord's consent. In the majority of jurisdictions, when there is a clause that the landlord may withhold consent to an assignment, the general rule is that the landlord may not withhold consent unreasonably unless there is a provision that states specifically that the Landlord may withhold consent at Landlord's sole discretion.
A person can also assign their rights to receive the benefits owed to a partner in a partnership. However, the assignee can not thereby gain any of the assignor's rights with respect to the operation of the partnership. The assignee may not vote on partnership matters, inspect the partnership books, or take possession of partnership property; rather, the assignee can only be given the right is to collect distributions of income, unless the remaining partners consent to the assignment of a new general partner with operational, management, and financial interests. If the partnership is dissolved, the assignee can also claim the assignor's share of any distribution accompanying the dissolution.
Intellectual property rights
See also: transfer (patent)
Ownership of intellectual property, including patents, copyrights, and trademarks, may be assigned, but special conditions attach to the assignment of patents and trademarks. In the United States, assignment of a patent is governed by statute, 35 U.S.C. § 261. Patent rights are assignable by an "instrument in writing." Title in a patent can also be transferred as a result of other financial transactions, such as a merger or a takeover, or as a result of operation of law, such as in an inheritance process, or in a bankruptcy. An assignment of a patent can be recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Although such recording is not required, if an assignment is not recorded at the USPTO within three (3) months or prior to a subsequent assignment, the assignment will be void against a subsequent assignee without notice of the earlier, unrecorded assignment.
With respect to a trademark, the owner of the mark may not transfer ownership of the mark without transferring the goodwill associated with the mark.
Companies sometimes request from employees that they assign all intellectual property they create while under the employment of the company. This is typically done within an Employment Agreement, but is sometimes done through a specific agreement called Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement (PIIA).
Personal injury torts
The standard rule is that personal injurytort causes of action are nonassignable as a matter of public policy. These should be distinguished from final settlements or judgments resulting from lawsuits brought on such causes of action, which may be assignable.
In the majority of jurisdictions, assignments of legal malpractice causes of action are void as against public policy.
An equitable assignment is an assignment, or transfer of rights, in equity.
There are numerous requirements that exist for an equitable assignment of property, outside the 'standard' clear and unconditional intention to assign. These requirements are fundamental characteristics of a statutory assignment: Absolute assignment (an unconditional transfer: conditions precedent or part of a debt are not absolute) and the assignment must be made in writing and signed by the assignor, and in particular, this applies to real property.
Assigning future property in equity cannot be gratuitous. The assignor must receive consideration for the agreement, otherwise the assignment will be ineffective. However, an absolute assignment does not require consideration to be given. Secondly, between the period of agreement between assignor and assignee and acquisition by the assignor, the assignees rights are not contractual, but rather a proprietary right to the property. This means the assignee has an interest in this future property, in the same manner any owner has over property.
In equity, these principles operate to protect both the assignor and the assignee. In Norman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, a taxpayer attempted to assign by deed, to his wife certain moneys which he was eventually going to receive. This included dividends and interest due on loans. The court held the interest and the dividends were expectancies or possibilities which could not be assigned without consideration. The court's worry was that assignments without consideration might be used as instruments of fraud, to avoid creditors and tax collection.
Courts will not enforce a contract to assign an expectancy unless there is a valuable consideration. For example, under a settlement of property the respondent "the son" would have been entitled to an equal portion of properties along with his other siblings which was gained in a settlement by his mother. This portion was only his when allocated to him at his mothers discretion. Prior to this allocation being made, the respondent allotted his benefit to trustees for a voluntary settlement. He was assigning or purporting to assign something which he might become entitled to in the future, not a contingent interest. The judgment held it ineffective and elaborated on previous points to state the respondent cannot be compelled to allow the trustees to retain the appointed sum.
- ^For the assignment of claim see Trans-Lex.org
- ^Australian Law Dictionary (second ed.). oxford university press.
- ^ abcNorman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation HCA 21, (1963) 109 CLR 9, High Court (Australia).
- ^Tips and traps in contracting: novation versus assignmentArchived January 26, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.. Association for General Counsel. (Australia).
- ^ abAssignee Liability: Through the Minefield. Arnstein & Lehr LLP.
- ^See 15 U.S.C. 1641(a).
- ^ abCommercial Paper: Holder in Due Course & DefensesArchived 2012-11-28 at the Wayback Machine..
- ^FTC Opinion Letter Affirms Consumers' Rights under the Holder Rule. FTC.
- ^ abcdStark T. (2003). Negotiating and Drafting Contract Boilerplate, Ch. 3: Assignment and Delegation. ALM Publishing.
- ^Chapter 18: Assignment and Delegation. LexisNexis study outline.
- ^Uniform Commercial Code § 2-210. Delegation of Performance; Assignment of Rights.
- ^Pony v. County of Los Angeles, 433 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2006).
- ^Cowan Liebowitz & Latman, PC v. Kaplan, 902 So. 2d 755, 759-760 (Fla. 2005).
- ^Westbourne Grammar School v Sanget Pty VSCA 39, Court of Appeal (Vic, Australia).
- ^Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 23C.
- ^Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Everett FCA 39, (1978) 21 ALR 625 at p. 643, Federal Court (Full Court) (Australia).
- ^Northumberland (Duke) v Inland Revenue Comrs