Therefore, we conclude that “a domain name registration is the product of a contract for services between the registrar and registrant.” Dorer, 60 F. Supp.2d at 561. A contract for services is not “a liability” as that term is used in § 8.01-511 and hence is not subject to garnishment. See Sykes v. Beal, 392 F. Supp. 1089, 1094-95 (D. Conn. 1975) (analyzing garnishment of services and concluding that automobile insurer’s duty to defend is not gamishable); cf. J. Maury Dove Co., Inc. v. New River Coal Co., 150 Va. 796, 827, 143 S.E. 317, 327 (1928) (where “contract contains mutual obligations and liabilities, or involve[s] a relation of personal confidence,” one party cannot assign it without consent of other party); McGuire v. Brown, Guardian, 114 Va. 235, 242, 76 S.E. 295, 297 (1912) (<HOLDING>). If we allow the garnishment of NSI’s services
holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract holding that an action for the negligence of an architect in the performance of professional services is an action for breach of contract holding that an attorneys services were personal services rendered or labor done under the predecessor statute to section 38001 holding contract for personal services is not assignable holding a task order for expanded flight services for the navy was within the scope because the contract was to cover services worldwide