A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Assignment. In 1984, James Griggs mother was killed in a car accident. Royal.

A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Assignment. In 1984, James Griggs
mother was killed in a car accident. Royal Insurance Co. of America agreed to
pay Grigg a number of monthly payments, as well as two lump-sum payments of
$50,000 due May 1, 1995, and May 1, 2005. Royal contracted with Safeco Life
Insurance Co. to make the payments. In 1997, Grigg assigned the 2005 payment of
$50,000 to Howard Foley for $10,000. Neither Grigg nor Foley notifi ed Safeco
or Royal. Four years later, Grigg offered to sell Settlement Capital Corp. (SCC)
his interest in the 2005 payment. On SCCs request, an Idaho

A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Assignment. In 1984, James Griggs
mother was killed in a car accident. Royal Insurance Co. of America agreed to
pay Grigg a number of monthly payments, as well as two lump-sum payments of
$50,000 due May 1, 1995, and May 1, 2005. Royal contracted with Safeco Life
Insurance Co. to make the payments. In 1997, Grigg assigned the 2005 payment of
$50,000 to Howard Foley for $10,000. Neither Grigg nor Foley notifi ed Safeco
or Royal. Four years later, Grigg offered to sell Settlement Capital Corp. (SCC)
his interest in the 2005 payment. On SCCs request, an Idaho state court
approved the transfer. Foley later notifi ed Safeco of his interest in the
payment, and in 2005, the court approved an arrangement by which Foley and SCC
would share the $50,000. Shortly before the 2005 payment was made, however, it
was revealed that Grigg had also tried to sell his interest to Canco Credit
Union, whose manager, Timothy Johnson, had paid Grigg for it. Later, Johnson
assigned the interest to Robert Chris, who used it as collateral for a loan
from Canco. Foley fi led a suit in an Idaho state court against Grigg, asking
the court to determine who, among these parties, was entitled to the 2005
payment. [Foley v. Grigg, 144 Idaho 530, 164 P.3d 180 (2007)]

(a) If the court applies the rule most often observed in the
United States, who is likely to be awarded the $50,000? If the court applies
the English rule, who will have priority to the payment? (b) Regardless of the
legal principles to be applied, was there a violation of ethics in these
circumstances? Explain.