In O'Neill v. O'Malley (1946) 75 Cal. App. 2d 821, property was transferred without the consent of the Department, even though the contract reflected the statutory requirement that prior consent be obtained. ( Id. at pp. 822-824.) In refusing to void this transfer, the appellate court stated: "There can be no doubt at all that under the provisions of the Military and Veterans Code there is a limitation against assignment written into every Department contract by operation of law even if not expressed. But is quite clear that if private individuals incorporated into their contract the exact language of the . . . statutes, . . . such language would be interpreted to be for the sole benefit of the vendor and would in no way affect the validity of the assignment between the assignor and assignee. It would seem that that language when used in a statute should not be given a different meaning. What appellants have overlooked is that there is a strong public policy in favor of the free transferability of property, and that such provisions have quite uniformly been interpreted as being of the sole benefit of the vendor and do not affect the rights inter se of the assignor and assignee. The Department is not a party to this action and its rights are not involved." ( Id. at pp. 826-827.)