English term (edited): pass to the benefit of and be binding upon

you have to look at the whole sentence, to understand why it's "(1)to the benefit of and (2)to be binding upon" instead of "all the obligations and rights"

This agreement is about a loan that is being repaid.

At that stage the Lender has ONLY rights [to demand repayment] and the Borrower has ONLY obligations [to keep repaying the loan]; [at the beginning, just after the contract was signed, it was the opposite: the Lender had only obligations - to give/lend the money, the Borrower had only rights - to demand the agreed loan]

so any

"heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns"

1 - of the Borrower will have ONLY obligations (the part "to be binding upon" - applies only to those replacing the Borrower)

2 - of the Lender will have ONLY rights - the part "to the benefit of" applies only to those replacing the Lender.

IOW the wording is crystal clear, and perfectly correct, and is in fact an attempt to make an abbreviated version of:


"This Agreement

will pass to the benefit of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns of the Lender

and

will be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns of the Borrower."

That would be a rephrasing easier to follow that corresponds EXACTLY to what is said in this ST.




--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 51 mins (2018-06-15 08:44:31 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

another element:

the term "... the respective ..." is there because transferring rights [will pass to the benefit of] or transferring obligations [will be binding upon] will not both happen to both the replacements for Lender and Borrower, but only one type of transfer will apply to the corresponding / respective" party - either the Lender's rights or the Borrowers obligations - but there are no "Lender's obligations" nor any "Borrowers rights" to pass to anyone, so the general purpose "passing rights and obligations" wouldn't make sense here, as in this ST either only rights or only obligations can be transferred.

By trying to avoid the repetition of the part "the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns of" the writers made a sentence you need to read carefully more than once, but that's not unusual in contracts.