債權讓與國際契約統一文件之比較研究(PICC、PECL、DCFR)

債權讓與的制度，涉及至少三方的當事人、且並不具有公示性的外觀，因此遠較物權讓與制度複雜，統一的法律規範可以增加可預測性與提高法律的安定性。國際上對於債權讓與，目前尚無具有拘束力之統一法律或文件規範，最早試圖規範債權讓與者為聯合國國際貿易應收帳款讓與公約，雖然其並未生效，但具有重要的參考價值，本論文主要參考的三份文件(國際商事契約通則、歐洲契約法通則與共同參考架構草案)皆參酌該公約之內容，試圖統一債權讓與之規範。本論文整理三文件對於債權讓與之概念與要件，釐清債權讓與的意義與方式，並比較各文件對於讓與性的規範有何差異。因債權讓與涉及多方關係，在介紹債權讓與效力時，區分為讓與人與受讓人間的對內效力、與對債務人以及第三人之對外效力分別敘述。對內效力的討論包含債權讓與之效力，當事人的地位如何改變、讓與的生效時點、讓與人的承諾清單；讓與是否產生財產移轉之效果，說明讓與及移轉之概念區分；讓與之基礎契約與移轉行為之關係，則是債權讓與是否適用無因性原則的討論。關於對外效力的討論，通知的形式與效力是各國對於債權讓與規定的規範重點，禁止或限制讓與條款在比較法的討論，包括其採取的是財產或契約觀點、以及絕對或相對效力模型，對於金錢與非金錢債權亦有不同的規範；關於債務人因債權讓與所增加之額外費用該由何人負擔，三文件也採取不同的規範模式。債務人因讓與而可對受讓人行使的抵銷權，廣義上為抗辯的一部份，但因為性質與條件有差異，在各文件下皆會受限制。優先性的議題，區分為受讓人間的優先性(雙重／多重讓與)以及與其他非契約當事人之第三人之優先性，因為優先性的規範會涉及多方的利益與衝突，因此國際上難有統一之規定。

關鍵字

債權讓與；讓與性；禁止讓與條款；限制讓與條款；應收帳款讓與

並列摘要

The law of assignment of claim is far more complicated than the transfer of property, because assignment involves at least three parties, and is not visible to the public. A unified law of assignment can help increase the predictability and legal security. Currently a unified law or legal instrument for assignment doesn’t exist. CARIT is one of the earliest attempts to unify international law of assignment. Although it didn’t come into effect, CARIT serve as an important reference for the later legislation and documents. All of the three documents discussed in this thesis (PICC, PECL and DCFR) refer and adopt the content of CARIT in an attempt to integrate the law of assignment. This thesis compares the concept and requirements of assignment of the three documents, explains the meaning and ways of assignment and elaborates the difference of assignability between the three documents. Since assignment involves multiple parties, the discussion of effectiveness of assignment between assignor and assignee will be distinguished from effectiveness against third parties. The effectiveness against the assignor includes the effect of assignment, which is how the status of parties changes, the time for the assignment to take effect, and the list of assignor’s undertakings. The discussion of whether the assignment effects a property transfer draws the distinction between assignment and transfer of property. The relationship between underlying contract and effect of act of transfer is the question of whether the principle of abstraction applies to assignment. As to the discussion of effectiveness of assignment against third parties, the form and effect of notice plays an important role in many national legal systems. Comparative law study for prohibition or restriction on assignment includes the questions of whether the law takes the property or contract view, and whether it adopts the absolute or the relative ineffectiveness model. The law also makes distinction between assignment of monetary and non-monetary claims. Concerning who should be responsible for debtor’s additional costs caused by assignment, the three documents set different rules. What the debtor can set-off against the assignee because of the assignment is in fact one of the defences he could exercise. However, due to the difference of nature of claims and conditions of exercising, there’s restriction for the right of set-off under each document. The issue of order of priority draws distinction between assignee and competing claimants. Because of the multiple interests and conflicts engaged in the rules for order of priority, it is hard to reach an internationally unified legal solution.