La propriété des créances est une notion controversée dans les systèmes juridiques romanogermaniques. Pourtant, le mouvement vers la dématérialisation des richesses conduit à envisager l'alliance de la propriété et de la créance, déjà reconnue par le biais du langage. Tant l'histoire que l'économie semblent converger vers la reconnaissance de la nature de bien des créances. Admettre cette nature ne suffit plus: encore faut-il en tirer la conséquence qui s'impose en termes d'objet de la propriété. C'est ce que semble avoir fait le récent Code civil du Québec. Tout autant que la propriété matérielle, la propriété des créances a prétention à la technicité. Longtemps cachée sous le manteau de la titularité, la propriété des créances n'a pas une nature distincte de celle de la propriété des corps. Simplement, de même que le régime juridique de la propriété s'adapte aux biens meubles ou immeubles qui en sont l'objet, le régime de la propriété des créances épouse la particularité de l'objet immatériel que sont les biens-créances. / The question as to whether ownership can bear on claims is a controversial one in Romano Germanic legal systems. Yet the on-going trend towards the dematerialisation of wealth invites legal experts to ally ownership and claims much in the same way in which, in ordinary parlance, people are said to own personal rights. Both history and economics would seem to point to a common recognition of the property nature of claims. Yet acknowledging the possibility that ownership bear on claims is no longer enough. The consequences of viewing the object of ownership as extending beyond material things must be recognized more generally. This is what the recent Civil Code of Québec appears to have done. Just as the material conception of ownership rests upon a technical infrastructure of the law of property, so too does the extension of ownership to claims require the elaboration of a technical regime. Traditionally obscured by a theory of titularity of rights, ownership as a means for explaining title to claims has the same juridical nature as ownership of things. Simply stated, ownership adapts to the object to which it attaches. Just as ownership can accommodate both movable and immovable property, so too can it be adapted to accommodate the peculiarities of claims as the object upon which it bears. / "Thèse présentée à la Faculté des études supérieures de l'Université de Montréal en vue de l'obtention du grade de Docteur en Droit (L.L.D.) et à l'Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3"

The paper is an attempt to deal with the non-transferable cheque. Three questions have been addressed: (a) Whether sections 58, 79 and 83 apply to non-transferable cheques; (b) whether the non-transferability of a cheque implies only that a cambial transfer is excluded, but transfer by means of a ordinary cession is still possible; (c) whether the collecting and drawee banks can be held liable for damages to the owner of a non-transferable cheque. (a) It is clear that section 58 does not apply to non-transferable cheques. After the decision in Eskom, it is also clear that section 79 does apply to such cheques. Regarding the applicability of section 83 to non-transferable cheques, there is uncertainty. (b) Whether the rights arising from a non-transferable cheque can be transferred by means of an ordinary cession, it is not yet clear. (c) That a collecting bank can be held delictually liable under the extended lex Aquilia was decided in lndac Electronics. By way of analogy, the same applies to a drawee bank acting negligently. / Mercantile Law / LL.M.