禁止债权让与特约的理论基础和外部效力

Theoretical Basis and External Validity of the Limitation of the Assignment of Claims

禁止债权让与特约的效力模式存在四种可能的类型。物权效力说虽对债务人的保护最为有利,但在债权让与已成为常态化交易模式的背景下,极大地损害了债权的经济价值,因此不宜适用。判断特约的效力模式时须结合债权的种类和当事人的主观状态进行区分,依据《民法典》第545条第2款的规定,在债权种类为金钱债权,或非金钱债权且第三人善意时,禁止债权让与特约的效力模式采债权效力说,特约不具有外部效力;在债权种类为非金钱债权且第三人为恶意时,相对无效之改良说能够更妥善地平衡各方利益,但缺少实定法依据,因此采相对无效说更为可行。

There are four possible types of models of validity for the limitation of the assignment of claims. While the property validity theory is the most favourable for the protection of the debtor, it is not appropriate to apply it in a context where the assignment of claims has become a normalized mode of transaction, as it significantly undermines the economic value of the claim. In determining the validity of a special agreement, a distinction must be made between the type of claim and the subjective state of the parties. According to Article 545(2) of the Civil Code, when the type of claim is monetary or non-monetary and the third party is in good faith, the validity of a special agreement to limit the assignment of claims is based on the debenture law theory and the special agreement has no external validity. In the case of non-monetary claims and bad faith on the part of third parties, the modified version can better balance the interests of all parties, but it lacks a basis in statutory law so the relative invalidity version is more feasible.