The creditor's rights transfer from the transferor to the assignee w hen the contract of assign-ment is valid.The debtor is usually not aware of assignment of creditor's rights before the notice of assign-ment because the debtor is not involved in the contract of assignment.In view of this situation,there are two main legislative cases in civil law system.The first one is that the effect of assignment of creditor's rights based on the notice can withstand the debtor,in which the effect of assignment of creditor's rights ought to be not against the debtor without notice and the assignee only has disposition and retention of creditor's rights.T he second one is that assignment of creditor's rights has complete effect to the debtor.In comparison,the first legislative cases both conforms to general theory of effect of creditor's rights and makes a balance of interests between the debtor and the assignee,so the author thinks that the first legis-lative cases is preferable to the second legislative cases.The provisions of Article 80 of China's Contract Law is too absolute to stipulate that assignment of creditor's rights is not effective against the debtor.As a result,it should be revised to the first legislative case in civil law system.%债权让与协议一旦生效,债权便随之从让与人移转给受让人.由于债务人并没有参与到该债权让与协议中去,故在对债务人为让与通知前,债务人通常并不知悉债权让与.针对该种情形,大陆法系主要国家或地区就债权让与对债务人的效力存在着不同规定.其主要分为让与通知对抗主义和让与合同生效主义两种立法例,前者认为债权让与之效力不得对抗债务人,受让人对债权只享有处分力和保持力;后者认为债权让与对债务人具有完全的效力.相比较而言,让与通知对抗主义更为合理,其既符合债权效力的一般理论,又兼顾了债务人和受让人之间的利益平衡.我国《合同法》第80条的规定采取让与通知生效主义,其认为此时债权让与对债务人不生效力,显然和让与合同生效主义一样过于绝对,宜被修正为让与通知对抗主义.
展开▼
