Final answer:
The assignor's liabilities when warranties are violated depend on whether the assignor acted in good or bad faith. Good faith breaches may lead to compensatory damages, while bad faith could result in larger penalties and legal repercussions. Resolving conflicts between perfect duties, like honesty and non-harm, involves ethical judgment to serve the greater good.
Step-by-step explanation:
When warranties are violated by an assignor, the liabilities that they might incur depend on whether they acted in good or bad faith. If the assignor was in good faith, he may still be liable to the assignee for any damages arising from the breach of warranties that were implicitly made during the assignment. The extent of this liability, however, could be limited compared to an assignor who acted in bad faith. Good faith essentially means acting with honesty in fact and a reasonable belief in the propriety of the transaction.
If the assignor was in bad faith, meaning they intentionally concealed information or knowingly transferred an assignment that was invalid or problematic, they could face harsher consequences. These may include compensatory damages, punitive damages, and also potential legal repercussions for fraudulent behavior. The concept of contumacy and sedition, mentioned in the reference, implies that a deliberate act against agreed obligations can result in significant penalties, which is analogous to how a bad faith violation of warranties in an assignment may be treated.
In situations requiring a resolution between two conflicting perfect duties, such as not lying versus not harming someone, ethical frameworks or legal guidelines need to be consulted. Telling the truth that results in harm can create a moral dilemma. The resolution usually entails weighing the consequences and striving for a balance where the greater ethical or legal good is served. Prioritizing one duty over another does not necessarily resolve the conflict but can help mitigate the consequences of the choice made.