A little bit of context would help explain more, but here is something that might help.

文言性 is the written state of a document, rule or law. In the web reference I list, the discussion is had about if a shipping receipt is incorrect, does the blame fall on the shipping company sending the receipt for incorrectly listing what is written on the paper (文言性 - the wording), versus the factual contents of what is in the package(要因性 - truth of the matter).

A further example of the usage of 文言性 can be found on page 3 of the article where a reference to the "wording of article 63" uses this jukugo.

つぎに・酋法六〇二条の文言性の規定に．ついては、それが、証券の発行によって、倉庫業者をして臥的物につき、証券面記載の文言にしたがい特別の法的担保責任を負担せしめたものであるとは解したがい、とされる．　


For 無因 (non-factor), this is the opposite of 要因 (a factor or cause), and the 性 kanji is typically added to jukugo to mean the equivalent of "-iness", or being in a state or condition of.

Page 9 of the pdf uses this jukugo to explain an untrue assumption about the shipping bill, that it is about money in opposed to the merchandise received:
（五）　この論理も前述判例〔一〕と同様である。つまり、手形の「無因性」は、金銭が債権の目的となっている点、換言すれば、述するように、請求権の国霞三〇巴σQ閑①淳にあ・ると誤解している。

Basically, it seems like it is used when posing philosophical logical arguments about conditionals or facts being either true or untrue.

Putting it all together, I would assume that regarding marketable securities, that 無因性 are non-included aspects, and 文言性 are aspects included in the contract or agreement.