摘要
法国法系和德国法系在让与通知效力方面的主要差别,在于是否将通知作为债权让与对抗债务人之外的第三人的要件。确定被让与债权之归属的优先规则,包括合同成立主义、通知主义和登记注册主义,我国民法在解释上应当采纳通知主义。债务人可以向哪一方当事人进行有效的清偿与优先规则确定的债权归属并非完全一致。如果在让与通知之前债务人已经知悉债权的让与,债务人与出让人之间消灭债权的行为不能对抗受让人。表见让与适用于由出让人做出让与通知的情形,在受让人通知的情形,对表见让与的适用应当有特别的限制。债务人有权不主张表见让与而拒绝向表见受让人清偿或请求返还清偿。
As to the effectiveness of notice of assignment, the main difference between French legal family and German legal family is whether notice is treated as the condition of assignment＇ s taking effect to the third party other than the debtor. There are three priority rules deciding who obtains the obligatory right assigned, i. e. the establishment of contract, notice and registry, among which the rule of notice should be accepted in Chinese civil law. Which party the debtor may make effective performance to and which obtains the obligatory right don＇ t always coincide. If the debtor knows the assignment before notice, the actions between the debtor and assignor don＇ t take effect to the assignee. In general, assignment by estoppel can be adopted in the case of notice made by assignor, while in the case of notice by assignee, the adoption of assignment by estoppel should be restricted by some means or other. The debtor may refuse to perform to the assignee or may claim the restitution of his/her performance to the assignee other than allege assignment by estoppel.
出处
《法学研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2007年第1期42-53,共12页
Chinese Journal of Law
关键词
优先规则
合同成立主义
通知主义
登记注册主义
表见让与
priority rules, the rule of establishment of contract, the rule of notice, the rule of registry, assignment by estoppel
