Köparens undersökningsplikt och säljarens upplysningsplikt
(2011) JURM01 20111Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Sammanfattning
Fastighetsköpet och de bestämmelser som blir tillämpliga i samband med detta har historiskt sett utgjort ett regelverk separerat från det som gäller vid köp av lös egendom. En av de främsta anledningarna bakom denna uppdelning är att fastighetsköpet typiskt sett betraktas som ett så kallat specieköp. För många människor utgör fastighetsköpet sannolikt en av de största och mest betydelsefulla affärsuppgörelserna i livet. Mot bakgrund av de höga värden som en fastighet representerar, i samband med att antalet överlåtelser som äger rum varje år knappast kommer att minska med en alltjämt växande befolkning, kan man snabbt räkna ut att antalet personer som är villiga att processa, vid den händelse att tvist skulle uppstå, är... (More) - Sammanfattning
Fastighetsköpet och de bestämmelser som blir tillämpliga i samband med detta har historiskt sett utgjort ett regelverk separerat från det som gäller vid köp av lös egendom. En av de främsta anledningarna bakom denna uppdelning är att fastighetsköpet typiskt sett betraktas som ett så kallat specieköp. För många människor utgör fastighetsköpet sannolikt en av de största och mest betydelsefulla affärsuppgörelserna i livet. Mot bakgrund av de höga värden som en fastighet representerar, i samband med att antalet överlåtelser som äger rum varje år knappast kommer att minska med en alltjämt växande befolkning, kan man snabbt räkna ut att antalet personer som är villiga att processa, vid den händelse att tvist skulle uppstå, är ganska många. Just tvister rörande faktiska fel under åberopandet av 4:19 § JB har, sedan införandet av Jordabalken, visat sig uppta en ansenlig del av det totala antalet civilrättsliga tvistemål varje år. Den ansvarsfördelning som gäller mellan köparen och säljaren, och den undersökningsplikt respektive upplysningsplikt som åvilar dem, har alltjämt ankommit på rättstillämpningen att klargöra. Högsta domstolens avgöranden har emellertid tolkats på olika sätt i doktrinen, vilket gjorde att man delvis sökte klargöra rättsläget genom den lagändring som ägde rum år 1990, vilken ledde till en kodifiering av köparens undersökningsplikt i form av ett andra stycke i 4:19 § JB. I rättspraxis har således en någorlunda förutsebar avvägning mellan köparens och säljarens intressen utkristalliserats, där Högsta domstolen slagit fast att det är köparens undersökningsplikt som bildar utgångspunkten för felbedömningen.
Säljarens upplysningsplikt och omfattningen av denna är emellertid fortfarande oklar. Denna fråga ligger fortfarande i rättstillämparens händer. Sedan början av 1960-talet har Högsta domstolen avgjort ett flertal fall som berör säljarens upplysningsplikt, vilka har blivit föremål för tolkning inom doktrin. Detta har delat upp författarna i två läger, där det ena menar att Högsta domstolens rättspraxis ger stöd för att säljaren har en generell upplysningsplikt medan det andra hävdar motsatsen. Den förstnämnda gruppen stöder sig främst på det senast avgjorda fallet NJA 2007 s. 86. Som nedanstående framställning kommer att visa finns det emellertid anledning att ifrågasätta om rättsläget verkligen har blivit klarare i och med domen. Bland de författare som ställer sig skeptiska till att Högsta domstolen skulle ha slagit fast en generell upplysningsplikt för säljaren finns det de som till och med hävdar att domen har mycket lite eller rentav inget prejudikatvärde alls. I sin strävan mot ökad klarhet kring upplysningsplikten och dess betydelse vänder många författare blicken mot våra nordiska grannländer, där man på vissa håll sedan länge tillämpar ett allmänt besiktningsförfarande, där felbedömningen tar sin utgångspunkt i säljarens upplysningsplikt istället för köparens undersökningsplikt. Nedanstående framställning kommer i denna del redogöra för hur ett sådant besiktningsförfarande går till, samt vilken betydelse ett sådant förfarande kan få för upplysningsplikten och dess betydelse i svensk rätt i framtiden. (Less) - Abstract
- Historically, real property law has been separated from the rules applicable to movables. One of the main reasons for legislatively separating the two is that the real property purchase is regarded a typical example of a non-generic purchase (specieköp). To many people, the real property purchase is one of the most important and major business deals they will ever make in their life. Considering the fact that a real property represents high values, in addition to the continuous increase of the number of real property transactions taking place every year, the number of potential plaintiffs, willing to initiate a lawsuit in case any dispute arises, is enormous. Disputes concerning material defects (faktiska fel), which are regulated by ch. 4... (More)
- Historically, real property law has been separated from the rules applicable to movables. One of the main reasons for legislatively separating the two is that the real property purchase is regarded a typical example of a non-generic purchase (specieköp). To many people, the real property purchase is one of the most important and major business deals they will ever make in their life. Considering the fact that a real property represents high values, in addition to the continuous increase of the number of real property transactions taking place every year, the number of potential plaintiffs, willing to initiate a lawsuit in case any dispute arises, is enormous. Disputes concerning material defects (faktiska fel), which are regulated by ch. 4 sec. 19 Land Code have proven to take up a considerable part of the total annual amount of disputes.1
1 SOU 1987:30, s. 55f. The allocation of liability between the purchaser and the vendor, known as the obligation to inspect and the obligation to inform, falls within the scope of case law, and is to be clarified by case law. However, the different interpretations of the judicial decisions made by the Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) have substantially varied. In attempt to eliminate any obscurity in this regard, alterations in the Land Code have been made. The latest alteration, made in 1990, resulted in the codification of the buyer’s obligation to inspect, by a second paragraph in ch. 4 sec. 19 Land Code. Consequently, a fairly suitable balance of the interests between the purchaser and the vendor has been established, as The Supreme Court has confirmed the obligation to inspect being the starting point when to decide who of the parties should be held liable for defects in the real property. However, the scope of the obligation to inform has not yet been clarified through case law. Since the beginning of the 1960’s, The Supreme Court has delivered several judicial decisions concerning the obligation to inform. These decisions have been subjected to interpretation by legal writers. The writers can be divided into groups, where the first one claims that case law has established a general obligation to inform for the vendor, whereas the second group claims the exact opposite. The first group mainly relies on the latest judicial decision made by The Supreme Court, NJA 2007 p. 86, to support their opinion. Nevertheless, as this essay will demonstrate, there is reason to question whether the matter has been clarified. Among the writers who remain skeptical to the statement that The Supreme Court should have established a general obligation to inform, there are those who even claim that this judicial decision is of little precedential value, if any at all. In their ambition to clarify the scope and meaning of the obligation to inform, many writers turn their eyes to the Nordic neighbouring countries, where a public inspection procedure is common practice. Unlike Swedish real property law, the starting point is the opposite when to decide who of the parties should be held liable for defects in the real property. In this aspect, the following essay will aim at describing the nature of such a procedure and describe what future influence it may have on the obligation to inform and its meaning in Swedish real property law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1973813
- author
- Påhlsson, Hanna LU
- supervisor
-
- Ola Svensson LU
- organization
- alternative title
- The obligation to inspect and the obligation to inform
- course
- JURM01 20111
- year
- 2011
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Undersökningsplikt, upplysningsplikt, fastighetsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 1973813
- date added to LUP
- 2011-06-08 10:05:02
- date last changed
- 2011-06-14 10:54:15
@misc{1973813,
abstract = {{Historically, real property law has been separated from the rules applicable to movables. One of the main reasons for legislatively separating the two is that the real property purchase is regarded a typical example of a non-generic purchase (specieköp). To many people, the real property purchase is one of the most important and major business deals they will ever make in their life. Considering the fact that a real property represents high values, in addition to the continuous increase of the number of real property transactions taking place every year, the number of potential plaintiffs, willing to initiate a lawsuit in case any dispute arises, is enormous. Disputes concerning material defects (faktiska fel), which are regulated by ch. 4 sec. 19 Land Code have proven to take up a considerable part of the total annual amount of disputes.1
1 SOU 1987:30, s. 55f. The allocation of liability between the purchaser and the vendor, known as the obligation to inspect and the obligation to inform, falls within the scope of case law, and is to be clarified by case law. However, the different interpretations of the judicial decisions made by the Swedish Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen) have substantially varied. In attempt to eliminate any obscurity in this regard, alterations in the Land Code have been made. The latest alteration, made in 1990, resulted in the codification of the buyer’s obligation to inspect, by a second paragraph in ch. 4 sec. 19 Land Code. Consequently, a fairly suitable balance of the interests between the purchaser and the vendor has been established, as The Supreme Court has confirmed the obligation to inspect being the starting point when to decide who of the parties should be held liable for defects in the real property. However, the scope of the obligation to inform has not yet been clarified through case law. Since the beginning of the 1960’s, The Supreme Court has delivered several judicial decisions concerning the obligation to inform. These decisions have been subjected to interpretation by legal writers. The writers can be divided into groups, where the first one claims that case law has established a general obligation to inform for the vendor, whereas the second group claims the exact opposite. The first group mainly relies on the latest judicial decision made by The Supreme Court, NJA 2007 p. 86, to support their opinion. Nevertheless, as this essay will demonstrate, there is reason to question whether the matter has been clarified. Among the writers who remain skeptical to the statement that The Supreme Court should have established a general obligation to inform, there are those who even claim that this judicial decision is of little precedential value, if any at all. In their ambition to clarify the scope and meaning of the obligation to inform, many writers turn their eyes to the Nordic neighbouring countries, where a public inspection procedure is common practice. Unlike Swedish real property law, the starting point is the opposite when to decide who of the parties should be held liable for defects in the real property. In this aspect, the following essay will aim at describing the nature of such a procedure and describe what future influence it may have on the obligation to inform and its meaning in Swedish real property law.}},
author = {{Påhlsson, Hanna}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Köparens undersökningsplikt och säljarens upplysningsplikt}},
year = {{2011}},
}