6 23.3 What is the effect of a transfer (assignment of receivables) under French law? And what about a purchaser in the context of a sale in relation to the initial consideration of the non-cedant? 23.4 Can the transferee of a secret claim in connection with an assignment recover more from the original unceded counterparty than the assignor could have recovered (for example. B on the basis of the principle nemo no longer legal)? 23.5 Is there a principle of French law that a transferee of a claim also enjoys the “incidental rights” attached to the claim? If so, what is the scope of the principle and what “incidental rights” can the assignee assert? 16. The interests mentioned in point 22 are either late interest, late interest, or late interest, since these terms are defined in master contracts (see above, point 1 l i). 17. I will first answer each of the five questions mentioned above and then give my opinion on the rules or principles of construction that apply and apply to the interpretation of commercial contracts such as master contracts? 18. Under French law, the provisions of Article 1156 and Seq. French civil code rules relating to the interpretation of treaties. These rules apply to all contracts, including commercial contracts. The most important rule is the rule in section 1156, which states that when interpreting agreements, one must try to determine the common intent of the contracting parties, not the literal meaning of terms 2. The following articles illustrate this general principle (for example.
(b) Article 1157: If there are two possible meanings for the same clause, it must be understood in a way that may have some effect rather than be understood in a way that would have no effect 3). 19. These principles have been referred to as a “recipe” 4 and should be used by the courts as interpretive guidelines. However, these provisions are not binding on judges, French jurisprudence does not recognize them as binding and judges may depart from the provisions: a lower court that departs from these provisions does not expose itself to the motion of censure of the French Court of Cassation. In other words, taking into account the intent of the parties themselves and not in an abstract way, considering the intention of a person who might be in the same position as those parties. Interpretation depends on the particular circumstances of Article 1156: “0” must in the conventions seek out what was the common intention of the contracting parties, rather than stopping in the literal sense of the terms.” Article 1157: “When a clause is subject to two meanings, it must be understood in the one with which it may have any effect, rather than in the sense with which it could produce none.” A.B Nabent, Law of Bonds, 2pm d., LGDJ, Paris, 2014, n Cass.civ.l 4`5, 6 March 1979, n , Bull.civ. I, 0 81, 66; Cass.com, January 19, 1981, n, Bull.civ. IV, n 34, p As a first step, Waterfall IIC should also address similar issues arising from French master contracts, namely the FBF and AFB masteragrements (for derivatives transactions), the AFTB Master Agreement (for pension transactions) and the AFTI Master Agreement (for securities lending transactions) (the “French legal issues”). However, the competing Sides of Waterfall IIC finally agreed on the issues of euro rights arising from the FBF and AFB management contracts (the “agreed position”3) and also agreed that the other issues related to the AFTB masteragrement and AFTI masteragrement should not be resolved in the high court proceedings or in view of the position. All French legal issues have therefore been removed from the IIC4 cascade.