【正文】 parties was prevented by the rules known of champerty and maintenance. These rules made it illegal to financially assist a party to litigation without lawful justification. In 1982 the position began to change in England when the House of Lords decided that a bank that had financed a sale of cement by one of its customers could validly take the assignment from the customer of his claim for damages for wrongful failure to pay for the cement.However, the essential condition required for the validity of the assignment was that the assignee had a “genuine mercial interest” in accepting the assignment and enforcing it for its own benefit. The assignment in the case at hand was held to be champertous and invalid because it was expressed to have been taken for the purpose of enabling the bank to resell the customer’s right of action to a third the House of Lords, the fundamental condition for the validity of an assignment of liability claims is that the assignee does not contemplate a further sale of the right of action.By this condition of genuine mercial interest, the House of Lords’ main concern was to prevent trafficking in litigation where large profits may be available to parties whose primary interest is in speculation as opposed to seeing justice done. By retaining the legitimate interest requirement, the courts are limiting trade of liability claims to persons with a connection to the litigant (. the bank that financed him), preventing a speculative market of liability claims from developing. Treitel seems to have a different interpretation of the “genuine mercial interest” requirement restricting illegal assignments to operations that allow or involve further resale of the claims, and considering lawful assignments where the assignee intends to enforce the right of action by However, this liberal interpretation does not seem to be in line with the intention of the House of Lords, which was to prevent the speculation on liability claims. The “genuine mercial interest” seems to be an interest separate from the benefit that the assignee would seek to gain from supporting the litigation, such as making a profit. In the model of assignment of claim described in this article, it seems that the existence of a genuine mercial or financial interest for the assignee is generally not characterized. Indeed, the interest in the action should exist prior to the assignment. However, considering the advantages of the assignment of a liability claim in terms of the shifting of the risk of losing the lawsuit and the anticipation of payment, one should wish that subsequent case law will consider that the interest required by Trendex Trading Corporation is met.. The general permission of assignability of liability claims in French law.French law prohibits the transfer of the right of action in damages independently from the credit for damages. It has for example been decided that a capital contribution to a pany cannot be of the sole right of action without the credit for damages and therefore the possibility for the pany as assignee to receive the ownership of the proceed in case of successful legal action.Article 1597 of the French Civil Code prohibits judges, attorneys and other legal professions to acquire lawsuits, rights and credits of action which are of the jurisdiction of the tribunal where they exercise their This article of the Civil Code, which provision has not changed since 1804, has been enacted officially for the purpose of preventing However, had this provision been enacted in fear of speculation over liability claims, the prohibition should not have only concerned some specific professions, but everyone striving for investing in liability claims. The real reason for this prohibition is the protection of the image of the justice in the society. Therefore, nothing prevents interpreting Article 1597 of the French Civil Code a contrario and admitting in principle the legality of the assignment of a liability claims.Case law has not had the chance to rule on the issue, but the most eminent authors seem to admit the legality of assignment of liability claims without trouble. However, it shall be acknowledged that, only after a plex analysis, one can conclude of the legality of their assignment.In addition, in case the liability claim is assigned after a legal action is brought to court, the Civil Code contains specific rules allowing the debtor to extinguish the claim by refunding the assignee the price paid for acquiring it from the assignor, the socalled “retrait litigieux”. This provision considerably limits the interest of the speculation, since when an assignee has made a good bargain by acquiring a liability claim, he will exposed to the retrait litigieux from the liable party.However, this provision does not apply when the liability claim is assigned before any action is brought to The question arises then to know whether the assignment of a liability claim prior to any legal action is practicable. Indeed, article 1693 of the French Civil Code, applicable to the traditional assignment of monetary liquidated credits, provides that the initial creditor (the assignor) is obliged to guarantee the assignee of the existence of the credit at the moment of the transfer. Since the damages credit only exists if it is subsequently recognized by a final ruling awarding damages, in case of loss of the lawsuit the assignee could argue for the rescission of the assignment for breach of the guarantee. However, legal doctrine and rare case law consider that the provision of article 1693 is not mandatory and that contracting parties to an assignment can deviate from it, stipulating that the assignment is concluded at the assignee’s own risk.These considerations lead to the conclusion of the legality of the assignmentof liability claims at least in one legal system… but legality does not necessarilymean desirability.3. The desirability of the assignment of liability claims. Ec