禁止转让的条款是否应被法规推翻

L. Gullifer
{"title":"禁止转让的条款是否应被法规推翻","authors":"L. Gullifer","doi":"10.5040/9781509903139.ch-014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many contracts for the supply of goods or services include a clause prohibiting assignment by the supplier of its rights under the contract. The existence of such clauses, both in particular contracts and more generally, can have a chilling effect on the use of receivables as collateral to obtain financing. Thus, in many jurisdictions, there is a legislative override for such clauses, so that they are not enforceable against third parties. There is an ongoing debate as to whether English law should follow suit and, if so, what form the override should take, which has now led to a power to make reforms being included in sections 1 and 2 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.1 This chapter examines the arguments for and against an override in English law, informed by two small-scale surveys undertaken by the author and others over the last four years.2","PeriodicalId":131276,"journal":{"name":"Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"22","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should Clauses Prohibiting Assignment be Overridden by Statute\",\"authors\":\"L. Gullifer\",\"doi\":\"10.5040/9781509903139.ch-014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Many contracts for the supply of goods or services include a clause prohibiting assignment by the supplier of its rights under the contract. The existence of such clauses, both in particular contracts and more generally, can have a chilling effect on the use of receivables as collateral to obtain financing. Thus, in many jurisdictions, there is a legislative override for such clauses, so that they are not enforceable against third parties. There is an ongoing debate as to whether English law should follow suit and, if so, what form the override should take, which has now led to a power to make reforms being included in sections 1 and 2 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.1 This chapter examines the arguments for and against an override in English law, informed by two small-scale surveys undertaken by the author and others over the last four years.2\",\"PeriodicalId\":131276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"22\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509903139.ch-014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Penn State Journal of Law and International Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509903139.ch-014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

摘要

许多供应货物或服务的合同都包括禁止供应商转让其在合同下的权利的条款。这种条款的存在,无论是在具体合同中还是在更普遍的情况下,都可能对利用应收款作为抵押品获得融资产生寒蝉效应。因此,在许多司法管辖区,对此类条款存在立法凌驾权,因此它们对第三方不具有强制执行力。关于英国法律是否应该效仿,如果是的话,应该采取何种形式的推翻,目前正在进行辩论,这已经导致了改革的权力被纳入2015年小企业,企业和就业法案的第1节和第2节。本章通过作者和其他人在过去四年中进行的两次小规模调查,研究了英国法律中支持和反对推翻的论点
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Should Clauses Prohibiting Assignment be Overridden by Statute
Many contracts for the supply of goods or services include a clause prohibiting assignment by the supplier of its rights under the contract. The existence of such clauses, both in particular contracts and more generally, can have a chilling effect on the use of receivables as collateral to obtain financing. Thus, in many jurisdictions, there is a legislative override for such clauses, so that they are not enforceable against third parties. There is an ongoing debate as to whether English law should follow suit and, if so, what form the override should take, which has now led to a power to make reforms being included in sections 1 and 2 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.1 This chapter examines the arguments for and against an override in English law, informed by two small-scale surveys undertaken by the author and others over the last four years.2
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信