Agreement Assignment Of Receivables
In the case of an interpretation of the wording of section 191 of the Act, it should be justified that, if the strict responsibility for guaranteeing solvency applies from the date of the transfer, this is a rather controversial issue in the doctrine. If the debtor`s solvency liability is limited to the date of the assignment and the transferee is not held liable if the debtor becomes insolvent after the transfer, the scope of the provision would be too narrow. The contravis argues that even in the event of a seizure or default, the seller is not held responsible for developments that occurred after the "transfer of the damage"; however, liability is assumed for damages/defects/defects/absences that existed at the time of the sale contract; the fact that the assignee is strictly guaranteed due to unforeseen developments, resulting in an unfair consequence in the distribution of risks between the parties. On the other hand, Parliament takes into account those who assume the risk of non-recovery of the transferred debt and therefore considers that an assignee who acquires the debt through the payment of a consideration is exposed to a greater risk and that, therefore, the assignee is bound by the guarantee in circumstances defined by law. It can therefore be said that, within the meaning of section 191, the debtor`s liability insolvency should not be limited to the date of the assignment. It should be remembered that, to the extent that this section is not a mandatory provision, the risk imposed by the law may also be attributed to the other party. To the extent that they are implemented, the regulation will make it easier for SMEs to reject their debts and obtain financing. However, the regulations do not mean that the beneficiaries of the transfers may ignore the terms of the underlying contractual agreements between suppliers and debtors; on the one hand, all existing removal rights continue to bind the agent. Since the regulations do not apply to contracts concluded before December 31, 2018, the transfer bans on divestitures apply for a period of time to many claims on SME suppliers.  In recovery situations, compensation and liability disputes are often more important to the debtor from an economic point of view than the validity of a transfer ban. This has led some to make known the argument that the common law should recognize all assignments, regardless of transfer prohibitions, at least between the assignee and the assignee.  This approach should balance the legitimate interests of all parties.