true or false: An assignment of liabilities may happen without the promisee's consent when it involves an interest in land?

In the context of Canadian hospitality law, the statement is true because certain types of assignments related to interests in land can occur without the consent of the promisee. Under common law, when dealing with real property, the law recognizes that an assignment of liabilities, particularly those involving leases or interests in land, does not necessarily require the promisee's consent. This is because the assignment is often viewed as a right attached to the property itself rather than to the individual who originally held the liability.

In many cases, the rights and responsibilities tied to the land are considered inherently transferable, allowing the assignee to step into the shoes of the original party without the promisee needing to agree to the transfer. This legal principle helps facilitate the smooth transfer of property interests, avoiding complications that could arise from requiring consent each time a liability is assigned.

In contrast, assignments of personal contracts, meaning those that hinge on the unique identity or qualifications of the original parties, typically require the consent of the promisee to be enforceable. Such distinctions underline the importance of the nature of the contract in determining whether or not consent is necessary.