notherwords,wherethereceivablesarisefromacontractofsaleofgoodsbetweenasupplierandadebtorwhoseplacesofbusinessareinthesameState,theUNIDROITConventioncouldnotapply,nomatterthefollowingassignmentofreceivablesistoassigneeinthesameordifferentState.Thusleavingtheinternationalassignmentofdomesticreceivablesuntouched.Theproblem,atitssimplest,istwofold:first,inconsistency.Forinstance,inthecasewhereabulkassignmentismadeandwherepartofthereceivablesaredomestic(supplieranddebtorareinthesameState)andpartareinternational(supplieranddebtorareindifferentState),ifthesupplierassignsthereceivablestoapartywhichislocatedinanotherState,thebulkassignmentbetweenthesamesupplierandthesameassigneewillbegovernedbytwosetsoflawsandregulations:theportionofinternationalreceivablesmaybegovernedbytheUNIDROITConventionwhilethedomesticonewillbelefttothejurisdictionofcertaindomesticlaw.
　　
　　Secondly,leavingtheinternationalassignmentofdomesticreceivablestothejurisdictionofvariouslawsystemsofdifferentStatescanmake“commercialpracticeuncertain,time-consumingandexpensive”.TheassigneeofreceivablesfromaforeignStatemaynotknowwhichState’slawgovernsthetransaction,and,ifthelawoftheassignor’sStateapplies,theassignee’srightswouldbesubjecttothevagariesofthatforeignlaw.Thisnodoubtwouldgreatlyimpedethedevelopmentofsuchtransaction.
　　
　　Cross-boarderreceivablesassignmentscallforauniformlaw.Fromthispoint,theUNIDROITconventiondoesnotsatisfythisrequirementonceandforall,forwhichithasbeenhighlycriticized.
　　
　　Basedonformerexperience,UNCITRALConvention’ssphereofapplicationisenlarged.Inthefirstarticle,itstatesthisconventionappliestoassignmentsofinternationalreceivablesandtointernationalassignmentsofreceivables.Anddefinesinarticle3thatareceivableisinternationalif,atthetimeofconclusionoftheoriginalcontract,theassignorandthedebtorarelocatedindifferentStatesandanassignmentisinternationalif,atthetimeofconclusionofthecontractofassignment,theassignorandtheassigneearelocatedindifferentStates.ThustheinternationalityrequirementofUNCITRALConventionactuallycontainstwointernationalitycriteria,andtheresultisthatthisconventioncouldbeappliedtoallassignmentsofreceivableswithinternationalelements,including:1)internationalassignmentofinternationalreceivables,wheretheassignor,assignee,anddebtorareinthreedifferentcountries;2)domesticassignmentsofinternationalreceivables,wheretheassignorandassigneeareinthesamecountry,andthedebtorisinanothercountry;and3)internationalassignmentofdomesticreceivableswheretheassignoranddebtorareinonecountryandtheassigneeinanothercountry.Inotherwords,thescopeofUNCITRALConventioncoversalltheassignmentofreceivablesexceptpuredomesticassignmentofdomesticreceivables(i.e.wheretheassignor,theassigneeandthedebtorareinthesamecountry)anditmaybeappliedonawiderangeofreceivablesfinancingininternationaltrade.
　　
　　b)    LinktoContractingPartyRequirement
　　
　　Althoughinternationalityisrequiredbyboththetwoconventions,inorderforthetwoconventionstoapply,itisnotsufficientthattheinternationalityrequirementismet.Boththeconventionsrequirethereshallbealinkwithcontractingparty.
　　
　　AsintheUNIDROITConvention,article2(1)stipulatesthisconventionwouldapplywhenanyofthetworequirementsoflinkwithcontractingpartyaresatisfied,
　　
　　(a)    thoseStatesandtheStateinwhichthefactorhasitsplaceofbusinessareContractingStates;or
　　
　　(b)    boththecontractofsaleofgoodsandthefactoringcontractaregovernedbythelawofaContractingState.
　　
　　Thus,intheUNDIROITConvention,thelinktocontractingpartyrequirementistwofold:aterritorialoneandalegalone.Theconventionwouldapplywhenevereitherofthetworequirementsissatisfied.
　　
　　AsfortheUNCITRALConvention,italsocontainsaterritoriallinkrequirementforitsapplicationinarticle1(1),butdifferentfromtheUNIDROITConvention,itdoesnotcontainalegallinkasarticle2(1)(b)oftheUNIDROITConvention.Noprovisionscouldleadtotheapplicationofthisconventionwhentheterritorialrequirementisnotmet.
　　
　　Ifwecomparetheterritorialrequirementinthetwoconventions,wewouldfindtheregulationisnotidentical.TheUNIDROITConventionrequiresthefactor’splaceofbusinessisincontractingStateswhiletheUNCITRALConventionrequiresnotthefactor(assignee),buttheassignorhasitsplaceofbusinessincontractingStates.Whenprobingthereasonforthis,onehastotakeintoaccountthattheUNDROITConventionwasdraftedbyasmallgroupofexpertswhobasicallyrepresenttheinterestsofthefactor(banksandfinancinginstitutions).Theregulationmakeristoprotectthepreferentialandleadingpositionofbanks,andit’snosurprisingthattheUNDROITConventionchoosesfactor’splaceasconnectingpoint.Actuallyinthetwokindsoflegalrelationshipinareceivablesfinancing:theunderlyingtraderelationshipbetweenthesupplierandthedebtor,andthereceivablesassignmentbetweenassignor(supplier)andtheassignee,thekeyroleconnectingthesetwokindsofrelationshipisjusttheassignor,whowouldparticipateinboththetwotransactionsandplaythemostimportantrole.TheUNCITRALConventionrecognizesthekeystatusoftheassignorandputitsplaceofbusinessasconnectingpoint.
　　
　　Fortheconditionwherethepartiesinvolvedhavemultipleplacesofbusiness,thetwoconventionsalsomakedifferentprovisionsonit.TheUNIDROITConventionsolvestheproblemofidentifyingtheplaceofbusinessbyreferringto“theplaceofbusinesswhichhastheclosestrelationshiptotherelevantcontractanditsperformance.”However,theUNCITRALConventionreferstothe“placewhereitscentraladministrationisexercised”.Usingtheplaceof“centraladministration”tosubstitutefortheplace“hastheclosestrelationshiptotherelevantcontractanditsperformance”,theUNCITRALConventionchoosesamorefixedandstableconnectingpoint,whichcouldincreasethepredictabilityalot.
　　
　　c)    RequirementontheReceivablesAssigned
　　
　　TheUNIDROITConventiondefinesreceivablesas“arisingfromacontractofsaleofgoodsbetweenasupplierandadebtor”andsupplementsthatgoodsandsaleofgoodsinthisconventionshallincludeservicesandthesupplyofservices.Obviously,theUNIDROITConventionwouldapplywhenthereceivablesassignedarearisingfromcontractsofsaleofgoodsandsupplyofservices.
　　
　　Meanwhile,article2(a)oftheUNCITRALConvention,

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4]  下一页