论文部分内容阅读
我国合同法规定,债权让与应当通知债务人,未经通知,该让与对债务人不发生效力。对此,主流观点持肯定态度,但也有学者认为应以通知作为履行行为,需经通知始发生债权转移。然而,这种主张恐怕是对债权及债权让与之本质的误解。债权系以达致“给付利益归属债权人”为宗旨的权利母体,请求权能并非其核心权能;债权让与,乃是让与人与受让人之间达成的关于给付利益归属的安排。在债权让与的基本理论结构中,并无通知的地位。
China’s contract law provides that the assignment of creditor’s rights should be notified to the debtor, without notice, the grant does not have effect on the debtor. In this regard, the mainstream view holds a positive attitude, but some scholars think that notification should be performed as a performance, subject to notice before the transfer of claims. However, this view is probably a misunderstanding of the nature of claims and claims. The claim system is not the core right of the creditor’s rights body to achieve the purpose of “vested interests”. The assignment of the obligee’s rights is the arrangement reached between the grantor and the assignee regarding the vested interest. In the basic theory of creditor’s rights structure, there is no notice status.