Expansion of Applicable Sphere: A way to Uniformity
——Compare and Contrast between UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL Conventions
By Dongsheng Lu, Chen Yan

I. Introduction

Financing is paramount for the promotion of commerce. It has been noted that “in developed countries the bulk of corporate wealth is locked up in receivables”. As the economy develops, this wealth increasing is “unlocked by transferring receivables across national borders”. With the prompt and great increases in international trade, receivables financing now plays a more and more important role. Yet under the law of many countries, certain forms of receivables financing are still not recognized. Even transactions are involved in countries where the form of receivables financing is permitted, determining which law governs will be difficult. The disparity among laws of different jurisdiction increases uncertainty in transactions, thus constitutes obstacles to the development of assignments of receivables. To remove such obstacles arising from the uncertainty existing in various legal systems and promote the development of receivables financing cross-boarder, a set of uniform rules in this field is required. The international community has made great efforts in adopting uniform laws. Among those efforts, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) drafted, on 12 December, 2001, “United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNCITRAL Convention”), with its aim to “establish principles and to adopt rules relating to the assignment of receivables that would create certainty and transparency and promote the modernization of the law relating to assignments of receivables”. UNCITRAL is not the first international organization attempting to resolve the problems associated with receivables. As early as in May 1988, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) has already adopted a convention known as the “UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNIDROIT Convention”).

When compare and contrast between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, one might see a lot of inconsistency in detailed regulations, e.g. sphere of application, relations between parties, priorities, and choice of law, etc. Given the limited space available in this article, the author may only focus on the difference in “sphere of application” of these two conventions, as sphere of application is perhaps the most fundamental issue of a convention.

The purpose of an international convention is to create uniformity in its covered matter, thus the broader a convention’s sphere of application is, the higher could uniformity reach. This article will try to make compare and contrast the sphere of application between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, illustrate the differences exist between these two conventions, and demonstrate the expansion of sphere of application in the UNCITRAL Convention and its progress on the way to uniformity.

II. Sphere of Application: Subject Matter

As its title indicates, the subject matter of the UNIDROIT Convention is of course international factoring. Article 1(1) says, “this Convention governs factoring contracts and assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter.”

For “factoring contract”, the UNIDROIT Convention provides the following 4 characteristics:

(1) purpose of the contract is to assign receivables;

(2) receivables to be assigned arises from contracts of sale of goods made between the supplier and its customers (debtors), other than those of sale of goods bought primarily for personal, family or household use;

(3) the factor is to perform at least two of the four functions: (i) finance for the supplier; (ii) maintenance of accounts (ledgering) relating to the receivables; (iii) collection of receivables; and (iv) protection against default in payment by debtors;

(4) notice of the assignment of the receivables is to be given to debtors.

As about “assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter”, article 2 (1) describes assignments of receivables as assignment of receivables pursuant to a factoring contract.

Factoring is just a subset of the receivables financing, and perhaps the oldest and most basic one. Besides factoring, receivables financing still entail the following forms,

(1) Forfeiting, similar to factoring, involves the purchase or discounting of documentary receivables (promissory notes, for example) without recourse to the party from whom the receivables are purchased;

(2) Refinancing, also known as secondary financing, involves the subsequent assignment of receivables. In its basic form, one bank or financier will assign to another bank its interest, with the potential for further assignment;

(3) Securitization, in which both marketable (for example, trade receivables) and non-marketable (consumer credit card receivables) asset cash flows are repackaged by a lender and transferred to a lender-controlled company, which will issue securities, sell and then use the proceeds to purchase the receivables;

(4) Project Finance, in which repayment of loans made by banks or financiers to project contractors for the financing of projects are secured through the future revenues of the project.

The first draft of the UNCITRAL Convention has stated to cover factoring, forfeiting, refinancing, securitization and project finance. Somehow, the working group decides that rather than emphasize the form in which the receivables appear, it would instead concentrate on the way in which the receivables might be transferred (contractual or non-contractual) and the purpose of the transaction (for financing or non-financing purposes). It decides the contractual receivables and assignment made to secure financing and other related services would be covered. The non-contractual receivables such as insurance and tort receivables, deposit bank accounts, or claims arising by operation of law seems are not within the ambits of the UNCITRAL convention.

III. Sphere of Application: Special Requirements

Both of the conventions contain a series of requirements. Only when those requirements are satisfied, could the convention be applied. The higher and stricter the requirements are, the smaller the chance to apply the convention is.

a) Internationality requirement

Both the two conventions indicate their sphere of application is of internationality requirement, but the same word in these two conventions has different legal meaning. The internationality requirement of UNIDROIT Convention is exclusively based upon the parties to the underlying contract, i.e. the contract of sale of goods (the supplier and the debtor) having their place of business in different countries. In other words, where the receivables arise from a contract of sale of goods between a supplier and a debtor whose places of business are in the same State, the UNIDROIT Convention could not apply, no matter the following assignment of receivables is to assignee in the same or different State. Thus leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables untouched. The problem, at its simplest, is twofold: first, inconsistency. For instance, in the case where a bulk assignment is made and where part of the receivables are domestic (supplier and debtor are in the same State) and part are international (supplier and debtor are in different State), if the supplier assigns the receivables to a party which is located in another State, the bulk assignment between the same supplier and the same assignee will be governed by two sets of laws and regulations: the portion of international receivables may be governed by the UNIDROIT Convention while the domestic one will be left to the jurisdiction of certain domestic law.

Secondly, leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables to the jurisdiction of various law systems of different States can make “commercial practice uncertain, time-consuming and expensive”. The assignee of receivables from a foreign State may not know which State’s law governs the transaction, and, if the law of the assignor’s State applies, the assignee’s rights would be subject to the vagaries of that foreign law. This no doubt would greatly impede the development of such transaction.

国家工商行政管理总局


工商行政管理所处理消费者申诉实施办法

1997年3月15日，中华人民共和国国家工商行政管理局

《工商行政管理所处理消费者申诉实施办法》已经国家工商行政管理局局务会议审议通过，现予公布，自1997年3月15日起施行。

第一条 为了及时处理消费者与经营者之间发生的消费者权益争议，依法保护消费者的合法权益，规范工商行政管理所（以下简称工商所）处理消费者申诉的程序，进一步贯彻实施《工商行政管理机关受理消费者申诉暂行办法》，根据《中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法》（以下简称《消费者权益保护法》）以及其他有关法律、法规的规定，制定本办法。
第二条 工商所处理消费者申诉，除本办法另有规定外，适用《工商行政管理机关受理消费者申诉暂行办法》的规定。
第三条 消费者因生活需要购买、使用商品或者接受服务，与经营者发生消费者权益争议，依照《消费者权益保护法》第三十四条第（三）项的规定向工商行政管理机关申诉的（以下简称消费者申诉），由经营者所在地或者经营行为发生地的工商所管辖。
第四条 工商所对于所受理的消费者申诉，认为在处理上确有困难的，可以报请上一级工商行政管理机关处理。
工商所对于不属于自己管辖的消费者申诉，应当告知消费者向有管辖权的工商所申诉。
第五条 工商所可以在其辖区内巡回受理消费者申诉，并就地处理消费者权益争议。
第六条 工商所处理消费者申诉，可以适用本条规定的简易程序。
消费者权益争议比较简单的，可以口头申诉，由受理申诉的工商所记入笔录或者进行登记，并告知被申诉人；对于不符合受理条件的申诉，工商所可以口头告诉申诉人不予受理及其理由，并记入笔录或者进行登记。
对于消费者权益争议，双方当事人可以同时到有管辖权的工商所请求处理。工商所可以当即处理，也可以另定日期处理。
经调解达成协议并能够即时履行的，可以不制作调解书。但是，应当对协议内容进行记录，并由双方当事人、办案人员签名或盖章。该记录在案的协议与工商行政管理机关制作的调解书具有同等效力。
第七条 工商所处理消费者申诉，有权行使下列收集证据的职权：
（一）要求当事人举证；
（二）询问当事人；
（三）查询、复制与消费者权益争议有关的协议、帐册、单据、文件、记录、业务函电和其他资料；
（四）收集其他有关证据。
当事人、有关的单位和个人有义务协助工商所收集证据。
第八条 工商所对未按照简易程序处理的消费者申诉，以自己的名义制作调解书。
调解书经双方当事人签收后，当事人应当按照调解协议履行义务。
第九条 经营者拒不履行调解书，且构成《消费者权保护法》第五十条第（七）项规定的违法行为的，由工商行政管理机关依照有关法律、法规或者规章另案处罚。
第十条 当事人自行和解后一方反悔，或者经消费者协会调解未能达成协议、虽达成协议但未能履行，消费者又向工商所申诉的，工商所按照《消费者权益保护法》第三十四条第（三）项以及本办法，作为独立的申诉处理。
第十一条 工商所在处理消费者权益争议时，发现经营者有违反工商行政管理法律、法规或者规章的行为而应当给予行政处罚的，应当按照有关法律、法规或者规章另案处理。
消费者协会在调解消费者权益争议时，发现经营者有违反工商行政管理法律、法规或者规章的行为而移交工商所予以处罚的，工商所应当按照有关法律、法规或者规章进行处理。
对于第一款和第二款规定的情形，按照有关规定属于工商所管辖的，由工商所立案查处；不属于工商所管辖的，依法移送有管辖权的工商行政管理机关处理。
第十二条 本办法自1997年3月15日起施行。