To Haggarty v. Pitman, 1 Paige, 298, the Chancellor stated that “when a debtor contracts his surety for compensation, the creditor is fairly entitled to the fund for the payment of his debts, and the guarantee has no right to redirect it to another purpose.” [iv] This is due to the fact that a contract for compensation of a party in accordance with the contract for the debts of another party is of a personal nature and therefore cannot be ceded by the deeds of one party. [v] However, if the contract requires only one party to “compensate, defend or save” another part of the legal responsibilities, such a contract may be transferred. [vi] The relevant part of the clause meant that the company could only recover professional civil insurance under the insurance policy claimed by the company on behalf of its designated agents. The Court of Appeal found that the burden of proof rests with the corporation to show that the amount paid to the customer for the FOS supplement was a surplus charged by these insurers, which the company did not do. Compensation is used in a wide range of contexts and there is no general rule as to when compensation should be awarded. This depends mainly on the circumstances of the contract (for example. B if the contract is a high-risk contract), the willingness of the parties to do so and their relative negotiating positions. A party in a stronger negotiating position is more willing to seek compensation from the other party, while a party in a weaker position is less likely to seek compensation. According to the drafting of the clause, compensation can be guaranteed: in Shaw/Lighthousexpress Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 161, the Court of Appeal of England had to decide whether a contract for a compensation clause had actually been awarded to the purchaser of a business mime contract and, if so, whether the purchaser could seek reimbursement as compensation from the other party. Complainant Shaw was an independent financial advisor (“IFA”). He had a contract of engagement (“ARC”) with a partnership, Berkeley Wodehouse Associates (“BWA”) until his resignation in December 1999. Under the CRA, Shaw had agreed to exempt BWA from all costs, fees and expenses, including any surpluses charged by BWA`s professional insurers as part of its service delivery.