Abstract
The author tries to resolve а legal issue raised in Serbian court practice: does the norm that prohibits the settlement of a monetary obligation via assignment of claims, in situations where the assignor’s account is blocked for the purpose of forced collection, represent by nature a norm: lex plus quam perfecta, or a norm: lex minus quam perfecta (Article 5 of the Law on Payments by Companies, Entrepreneurs and Natural Persons). According to the Serbian Supreme Court of Cassation, the misdemeanour liability for infringement of the prohibition of assignment cannot exclude the absolute nullity of legal transaction as a civil sanction, as specified in Article 103 of the Law on Obligations. On the contrary, the author argues that the repressive and preventive purpose of interpreted legal rule is achieved by the enhanced penalty, while the legal transaction undertaken contrary to the prohibition remains valid and in force.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
