As a landlord I would be happy with this arrangement.
So as to avoid any issues in the future between the new tenant and the Landlord it would be ideal to get a letter confirming the property was in good condition on the lease assignment (ie you would have got your full deposit back without any deductions for breakages and damage).
To the best of my knowledge you remain liable for any updaid rent under the original lease as lead tenant. In an ideal world the landlord would agree to provide a new lease and thus removing any potential future problems
Well it's assign or sublet, surely I'd only be liable if I sublet (which wouldn't be ideal if I'm buying a house, I'd want to wash my hands of the rental asap). If I found a new tenant to assign the property to then the lease would be drawn up between them and the landlord.
That's technically not "assignment", it's a new lease with the old one being torn up.
From Threshold "Assignment is where you leave the tenancy and you find a replacement who becomes the tenant of the landlord. A new tenancy cycle begins and you no longer have any responsibilities to the tenancy."
Which is pretty much what I said..
Doesn't make it right
Assignment technically means you sign over the same lease to a new tenant (with approval of the landlord) and they take on the rights and obligations. What Threshold describe is different; one key difference is that a true assignment will not start a new "tenancy cycle" in terms of the term; the new tenant will just serve out the rest of the existing term. Also, in a true assignment, the new tenant will be entitled to your deposit back, rather than it going to you, absent any other arrangements.
Calling it an assignment is *approximately* right but not quite; so just be careful using the word in case the landlord thinks you're saying something different to what you actually mean. Better to use "new lease" to avoid any ambiguity.