Conventional transfer of claims.

Summary Assignment, negotiation and subrogation belong to the same legal category. The codifiers had not provided a regime for the contractual transmission of claims. This gap was filled by the extension of the assignment of claims, envisaged by the Civil Code as a special form of sale. In order to avoid the constraints arising from the formalities required for perfection, the legislator has multiplied the exceptions to the ordinary law of assignment of claims. At the same time, the case law has accepted that negotiation and subrogation can be used as substitute procedures for avoiding the formalities of assignment of a claim. Each of these methods of transmission thus pursues the same objective. Assignment, negotiation and subrogation are thus subject to the same regime, subject to the conditions of opposability to third parties. They are thus species of the same kind. They belong to the more general category of conventional transfer of claims. However, they are distinguished by incidental features which justify the fact that only the assignment of a claim is in principle subject to the formalities of article 1690 of the Civil Code. These characteristics can be deduced from the legal nature of the contractual transfer of claims. The transaction derogates from the relativity of the bond of obligation by creating a legal relationship between the debtor and the successor in title. The assignment extends the binding force of the agreement between the assignor and the assignee. Negotiation undermines the relative effect of the agreement between the originator and the debtor, who is obliged to recognise the status of successor in title to the person designated by the negotiable instrument. Subrogation conceals the infringement of the relativity of the bond of obligation . it confers on the subrogee the same place as on the subrogator. The thesis is published on the site http://www. Glose. Org.