| Article 768 of the Chapter on Factoring Contracts of Chinese Civil Code provides for the order of satisfaction in the case of multiple assignments of debt as "registration first, notice second, and apportionment third". Supporters of the "unitary approach" argue that this provision regarding receivables is in essence a general one, so it should be either directly or analogously applied to the assignment of various types of debt other than receivables. However, this proposition cannot be justified from a methodological standpoint. Neither can it be supported by the newly promulgated Measures for the Unified Registration of Security Interests over Movable Properties and Rights from an institutional standpoint. Article 768 itself has many inherent defects and problems. Creditors' rights are too numerous to do initial registration like property rights. Moreover, registration of the creditor's rights focuses on the holder of the right in question, not the subject matter of the right, so the registrar does not carry out substantive checks on application materials, leading to weak public faith in the registration. The rule of notice adds a burden to the debtor and logically contradicts the rule that a debt is transferred when the assignment of the very debt becomes effective. The principle of apportionment violates many theories of the assignment of debt. Article 768 is even more difficult to apply where the assignment of debt in question coincides with the seizure of debt or the insolvency of the assignor or the assignee. Whether based on the systemic position, theoretical problems or practical predicaments, the application scope of Article 768 ought to be confined to the context of factoring only, so as to avoid excessive impact on traditional theories of the assignment of debt. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号