The above provisions, which allow for the lifting of such restrictions on the assignment of receivables, are contained in the Assignment of Receivables Regulations 2018, which apply to any provision of a contract that came into force on or after December 31, 2018. Under section 2 (1) “Subject to provisions 3 and 4, a provision of a contract shall have no effect to the extent that it prohibits the assignment of a receivable under this or any other contract between the same parties, or imposes a condition or other restriction.” The rules do not apply when the supplier is a “large company” or an “affected vehicle” (the “SME test”) at the time of appointment. The counter-opinion argues that, even in the event of seizure or defect, the seller is not held responsible for developments that occurred after the “transfer of damage”; however, liability for damages/defects/absence that may exist at the time of the sales contract will be assumed; and that if the assignor is subject to no-fault warranty liability due to unforeseen developments, this results in an unfair consequence in the allocation of risks between the parties. On the other hand, the legislator takes into account the risk of non-recovery of the assigned receivable and therefore considers that an assignee who acquires the receivable by paying consideration is more exposed to a greater risk and that, therefore, in the circumstances established by law, the assignor is placed under the responsibility of security. It is therefore possible to say that liability not attributable to the debtor`s insolvency under article 191 should not be limited to the date of assignment. It should be recalled that, since this article is not a mandatory provision, the risk imposed by the law of one party may also be transferred to the other party. On the other hand, the question of whether an arbitration agreement between the assignee and the debtor will be effective in the event of an assignment of receivables is controversial. According to the opinion that I also agree with; under Turkish and Swiss positive law, since, in accordance with the principle (also) referred to in Turkish law of obligations, Article 188(1) and Article 169(1). . . .