Assignment And Set Off Agreement
The position invoked is also that concerning Article 9 of the CSCE (9-404 (a) (2), the Canada and New Zealand ECA and the UNCITRAL Model Bill. Under these instruments, the communication (or knowledge) of the “assignment” or “interest in the guarantee” that may be given on future ownership. It is only after the Australian PPSA that the situation is potentially different, given that Section 80(1) provides that the deadline “before the first time the payment of an account debtor in contempt no longer fulfils the account debtor`s obligation under Subsection 8 in the amount of the payment”. It is likely that this point can only occur when the corresponding account has been created, since only then can the payment take place. A netting contract concluded between the company and the customer after the announcement of the assignment by the customer is generally not effective vis-à-vis the factor. Under Hong Kong law, the assignment of debts is governed by law and common law principles. Section 9 of the Amendment and Reform of the Law (Consolidation Regulations) Regulations (Cap. 23) (the Regulations) provides that this solution is consistent with the principle that the debtor`s situation must not deteriorate as a result of the assignment. The interests of the assignee are protected by the claim it may then have against the zechter in accordance with Article 9.1.15 (e).
Under the fourth principle mentioned above, an assignee is not bound by an independent set-off between the assignor and the debtor resulting from the notification of the assignment to the debtor. The reason for this rule is that, as soon as the debtor is aware of the assignment, the debtor should not be able to infringe the rights of the assignee by allowing further set-offs. Bibby argued that at the time of the original factoring contract, the debtor had been “informed of the assignment” and that all independent set-offs resulting from that date could not be relied upon by the debtor. A right may in principle be assigned without the consent of the debtor (see Article 9.1.7, paragraph 2). This solution is based on the assumption that the assignment does not affect the legal status of the debtor. In summary, rights of set-off continue to apply after the assignment when: netting clauses are most frequently used in credit agreements between lenders such as banks and their borrowers. They can also be used for other types of transactions in which a party is exposed to the risk of default, for example. B in the case of a contract between a manufacturer and a purchaser of its products. The Truth in Lending Act prohibits non-payment clauses from applying to credit card transactions; This protects consumers who refuse to pay for defective goods purchased with their cards using what is known as a retrobook.
In addition, as I have already said, the category of current debt is very broad, including the one that is payable, but also the undeserved payment entitlements arising from current commitments. Distinguishing between these and futures debt seems perverse. There is a restriction: the communication must be an “assignment” (although according to the Holroyd vs. Marshall principle) and not a general assignment agreement or variable royalty. There is a public authority which finds that it is only after the crystallisation of the floating charge (and communication) that the debtor can no longer be independently compensated against the prosecution (Biggerstaff v Rowatt`s Wharf Ltd  2 Ch 93). In accordance with paragraph 2, the debtor may exercise a right of set-off with the assignee, provided that the right of set-off has been made available to the debtor in accordance with Article 8(1) prior to notification of the assignment. The debtor may have been able to withhold or refuse to pay to the original debtor because of an objection such as improper performance of the debtor`s obligations. In determining whether such objections may also be invoked with the assignee, the respective interests of the parties must be weighed: the assignment should not aggravate the situation of the debtor, while the assignee has an interest in the integrity of the acquired right. . .