ABSTRACT: This article tries to analyse in a comparative manner the Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) 2009 rules relating to various types of multiparty situations in the law of obligations. It analyses more specifically the structure of the legal relationships in case of representation, stipulation in favour of a third party, assignment, (personal) subrogation, and some other situations that can be seen as situations with a change on the side of the creditor. Attention is given especially to the question on how the three single relationships relate to each other, including the defences of the parties, as well as to the relationship between the proprietary and the obligational aspect of the relationship. The third part deals with situations where a new or additional debtor enters into the relationship, and again more specifically with the question on how the three single relationships relate to each other, including the defences of the parties (in these relationships, there are no relevant questions of property law). The analysis shows that the DCFR 2009 has rather coherent rules as to the multiparty relationships it expressly covers and is not yet fully developed as to some other similar relationships. The ‘product’ is benefiting highly from the fact that the contract has been replaced by the obligational relationship as central category and that both are clearly distinguished. The distinction between the proprietary and obligational aspects is fairly developed but could have been clearer.
RÉSUMÉ: Cet article tente d’analyser de manière comparée les règles du Draft Common Frame of Reference (DCFR) 2009 concernant les différentes situations multi-parties en droit des obligations. Il analyse plus spécialement la structure des relations juridiques en cas de représentation, stipulation en faveur d’autrui, cession de créance, subrogation (personnelle) et quelques autres situations qui peuvent être comprises comme situations de changement concernant le créancier. L’article examine comment les trois relations bipartites interagissent entre eux, y compris la question des exceptions que les parties peuvent invoquer, ainsi que la relation entre les aspects du droit des biens (la créance comme propriété). L’analyse montre que le DCFR 2009 a des règles expresses assez cohérentes concernant les situations tripartites ; il n’est pas encore pleinement développé s’agissant d’autres situations. Le ‘produit’ a bénéficié énormément du fait que le contrat a été remplacé comme catégorie centrale par celle de relation juridique (obligationnelle) et que ces deux notions sont bien distinguées. La distinction entre les aspects du droit des obligations et ceux du droit des biens est relativement bien développée, mais aurait pu être encore plus claire.
European Review of Private Law