Agreement For Assignment Of ReceivablesThursday, April 8, 2021 Category: Uncategorized
By law, a debtor acting in good faith, who is not aware of the assignment, is deemed to be discharged from his debt if he meets his obligations to the assignee, that is, his former creditor, or if the debt has been transferred several times, to one of the former agents instead of the last. In this way, the law protects the debtor who acts in good faith. However, if the debtor has been informed of the transfer of the debt, he can only fulfill his obligation to the assignee; If it fulfills its obligation to the assignee, it is required to fulfill its commitment to the assignee a second time. The debtor may be informed either by the assignee or by the assignee of the assignment of the debt, nor is this notification subject to a formal requirement.  This responsibility is as much a responsible responsibility as liability in the event of default or seizure. Even if the assignee is not or is not informed of the existence or absence of the debt, or if he is not kept informed of the existence or absence of the debt, or if the debtor has certain means, the assignee is held responsible for the absence of the credit. The assignee is primarily responsible for the existence of the debt at the time of the assignment.  However, the same rule also applies with respect to solvency and, even if the assignee does not know or is not aware of the debtor`s insolvency, he continues to be held liable for insolvency under a very high guarantee vis-à-vis the assignee. However, since Article 191 is not a binding provision, it may be circumvented by the parties or a strengthened responsibility may be agreed upon by the parties (for example. B, the obligation of the assignee, including because of the debtor`s lack of guilt).
It should be recognized that in the event of a debt transfer by concealment of the debtor`s insolvency, although he is aware of his insolvency, the assignee cannot avail himself of the non-responsibility agreement with the assignee (as in the case of defaults or seizures). The term “assignment” is not defined in the regulations and, to the extent that it has its normal legal meaning, it does not include the creation of a royalty or trust. It appears, therefore, that the regulations do not apply to the creation of a royalty or trust.  The Chamber of Cassation of the 11th Civil Chamber, in its decision of 8.3.2010, falls under file no 2010/2093 E., 2010/2560 K. Section 257 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act sets out the conditions that should exist to order a temporary seizure and, if a cheque is transferred as a reference after it is presented, it does not affect the specific characteristics of the cheque as a document, but confers on the debtor certain rights with respect to the grounds advanced. There is therefore no legal obstacle to opening an enforcement procedure in a specific way to change operations. If a cheque is confirmed after it is presented, the characteristics of a cheque are not withdrawn; However, such approval involves the disposal of debts. It is of the nature of the case that, where an approval leads to an assignment of the claims in this way, this does not prevent the creditor from becoming the authorized holder.
You may also like
- Unique Post