In Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. Hansen (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 173, Southwest Storage Company hired Hansen to build 10 silos on its property. Hansen secured a performance bond from Pacific Indemnity. (Id. at p. 175.) After the silos were built, Southwest sold them to Hill, who sold them to Balfour. About seven years after completion of the silos, Balfour observed pieces of concrete breaking loose inside the silos. Investigation revealed that the reinforcing steel in the silos did not comply with the specifications. Balfour settled its claims against Southwest and received an assignment of Southwest's claims; Balfour, as assignee, sued Hansen and Pacific Indemnity for fraudulently representing that the silos had been built in accordance with the construction contract. (Id. at pp. 181-182.) The defendants contended Balfour had no cause of action against Pacific Indemnity because of a restriction in the bond which stated: "'No right of action shall accrue under this bond to or for the use of any person other than the said Obligee.'" (Id. at pp. 177, 187.) The trial court found Hansen breached the construction contract and was guilty of fraud, and Pacific Indemnity was liable on the performance bond. (Id. at p. 184.) On appeal, the defendants challenged the finding that Southwest's causes of action for breach of contract and on the performance bond were validly assigned to Balfour. (Id. at pp. 184-185.) In determining the effect of the restrictive clause in the bond, the court distinguished "between a contract (the bond) and rights coming into existence after breach of that contract." (Balfour, supra, 227 Cal.App.2d at p. 187.) The Court stated that "'a provision in a contract ... against assignment does not preclude the assignment ... of money damages for the breach of the contract.'" (Balfour, at p. 187.) "'If such an interpretation of a policy is possible, an assignment of a right which has already accrued under the policy is held not to be within prohibition against assignment; and even though the policy clearly forbids assignment after as well as before loss, it has been held that the provision is void.' " (Id. at pp. 187-188.) Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment against Pacific Indemnity.