Rosen pays Logan the $500, which discharges his obligation since he had no knowledge of the assignment to Lou. Because neither Logan nor Lou informed Rosen of this assignment, Rosen is not liable to Lou and has fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, the statement is False.
;
In this scenario, we are dealing with the concept of 'assignment of rights' in contract law. When Logan assigns his right to receive money from Rosen to Lou, Logan essentially transfers his entitlement to the payment to Lou. However, for an assignment to be effective against the debtor (Rosen, in this case), Rosen must be notified of this change.
Here's the step-by-step reasoning:
Assignment of Rights : Logan, the creditor, has a right to receive $500 from Rosen. Logan assigns this right to Lou, which means Lou is now the person entitled to receive the $500.
Notification Requirement : For Rosen to be obligated to pay Lou instead of Logan, Rosen must be notified of the assignment. Without notification, Rosen is justified in paying Logan, thinking that Logan is still the creditor.
Payment Without Notification : On March 1, Rosen pays Logan the $500 because he has not been informed of any assignment.
Legal Implication : In most jurisdictions, if Rosen pays the original creditor (Logan) without knowledge of the assignment, this discharge is not effective against the assignee (Lou). Therefore, Rosen is not discharged from his obligation and becomes liable to Lou for the payment.
Rosen's Recourse : Rosen may seek to recover the amount paid to Logan if possible, as Logan received the payment even though he had already assigned his right to the money to Lou.
In conclusion, the statement is True . Rosen is not discharged from the obligation by paying Logan and is still liable to Lou for the $500.