Myresjöhusavgörandets påverkan på konsumenträttsliga garantiutfästelser
(2016) LAGF03 20161Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- En näringsidkares garantiutfästelse utgör en kraftig förstärkning av det konsumentköprättsliga skyddet. I Konsumentköplagens 21 § stadgas det att en näringsidkare skall svara för såväl ursprungliga som uppkomna fel hos varan under hela den angivna tiden. Lägg därtill till att Konsumentköplagen redan, i form av dess 20a §, innehåller en form av lagstadgad garanti där fel som visar sig inom sex månader efter avlämnandet av varan ska presumeras vara ursprungliga.
Andrahandshandeln av samma konsumentköpta vara omfattas istället av den dispositiva Köplagens bestämmelser, i den mån andrahandshandeln genomförts utanför försäljarens näringsverksamhet. Köplagen innehåller inte någon lagstadgad garanti för varans beskaffenhet och utgör dessutom... (More) - En näringsidkares garantiutfästelse utgör en kraftig förstärkning av det konsumentköprättsliga skyddet. I Konsumentköplagens 21 § stadgas det att en näringsidkare skall svara för såväl ursprungliga som uppkomna fel hos varan under hela den angivna tiden. Lägg därtill till att Konsumentköplagen redan, i form av dess 20a §, innehåller en form av lagstadgad garanti där fel som visar sig inom sex månader efter avlämnandet av varan ska presumeras vara ursprungliga.
Andrahandshandeln av samma konsumentköpta vara omfattas istället av den dispositiva Köplagens bestämmelser, i den mån andrahandshandeln genomförts utanför försäljarens näringsverksamhet. Köplagen innehåller inte någon lagstadgad garanti för varans beskaffenhet och utgör dessutom en dispositiv lag till förmån för speciallag eller köpeavtalet, vilket faktiskt möjliggör för avtalade garantivillkor som utgör sämre villkor för köparen än vad som följer av Köplagen.
I uppsatsen redogörs först och främst för vad som händer med en garanti när en garantibefäst vara överlåts konsumenter emellan. Kan andrahandsköparen åberopa näringsidkarens garantiutfästelse trots avsaknad av direkt avtalsförhållande, och i så fall på vilken grund?
Huvudregeln för svensk rätt är att rättigheter går att överlåta på borgenärssidan så länge överlåtelsen inte leder till skada för gäldenären. Gällande en näringsidkares garantiutfästelse står det således fritt för en konsument att överlåta en garantirättighet, så länge inte näringsidkaren åsamkas skada av överlåtelsen.
Centralt för arbetet är Högsta domstolens domskäl i mål nummer T 916-13 från den 22 december 2015. Tvisten i fråga gällde fel i fastighetsentreprenad där flertalet husägare, både andrahands- och förstahandsägare, gått samman och stämt näringsidkaren som utförde arbetet. Andrahandsägarna stämde här dessutom näringsidkaren trots att det funnits ett överlåtelseförbud för rättigheterna i det ursprungliga standardavtalet mellan näringsidkaren och förstahandsköparen. Den för uppsatsen relevanta delen av domen utgör således domstolens resonemang kring andrahandsköpares möjligheter att göra rättigheter, som följde av det ursprungliga entreprenadavtalet, gällande gentemot näringsidkaren, trots existensen av överlåtelseförbudet.
Domstolen kom här till slutsatsen att överlåtelseförbudet inte skulle påverka andrahandsköparnas möjligheter att göra de ursprungliga rättigheterna gällande gentemot näringsidkaren. De kom dessutom till slutsatsen på osedvanligt vis då de till exempel inte jämkade överlåtelseförbudet p.g.a. oskälighet. Domstolens resonemang innebär att andrahandsköparna enbart har förvärvat rättigheterna i avtalet i samband med köpet av egendomen, utan att för den sakens skull blivit avtalspart.
Resonemanget i ovan nämnda avgörande tycks innebära att en näringsidkares skyldigheter, såsom en garantiutfästelse, som följer av ett standardavtal numera anses vara en del av det överlåtbara objektet snarare än själva köpeavtalet. (Less) - Abstract
- A warranty in B2C-relations regarding constitutes a major increase of the consumers rights. It Is stated in the KKL 21 § that a businessman should be held liable for original- as well as later occurring faults in the product for the entirety of the prearranged course of time. In addition to this, the KKL in its 20a § does already contain a form of warranty regulated in law where defects who appear within six months after the product is handed over to the consumer is presumed to be original defects.
The second hand trade of the same B2C-sold product is instead subject to the optional regulations of Köpagen, given that the second hand trade has not been a subject to the vendors business operations. Köplagen does not include any previous... (More) - A warranty in B2C-relations regarding constitutes a major increase of the consumers rights. It Is stated in the KKL 21 § that a businessman should be held liable for original- as well as later occurring faults in the product for the entirety of the prearranged course of time. In addition to this, the KKL in its 20a § does already contain a form of warranty regulated in law where defects who appear within six months after the product is handed over to the consumer is presumed to be original defects.
The second hand trade of the same B2C-sold product is instead subject to the optional regulations of Köpagen, given that the second hand trade has not been a subject to the vendors business operations. Köplagen does not include any previous mentioned warranty regulated in law and constitutes of an optional law, which actually enables the negotiating of lesser terms than what is in Köplagen originally stated.
This essay, first and foremost, identifies what consequences a second hand trade, between consumers, has on a businessman’s stated warranty. Could the second hand buyer invoke the businessman’s stated warrany despite the lack of an contract between them. And if so, on what grounds?
The main principle of Swedish law regarding transfers of contractual rights is that a creditor is free to transfer his right to whomever he wants, as long as the transfers doesn’t lead to any damages on the debtor’s behalf. A consumer is hence, regarding a warranty stated by a businessman, free to transfer the rights of the warranty as he likes, as long as the businessman doesn’t suffer any damage due to the transfer.
On the 22nd of December in 2015 the supreme court of Sweden delivered a vital ruling in regards to the purpose of this essay. The circumstances in the dispute regarded real estate defects where consumers, both first hand and second hand traders, had sued the company responsible for the real estate defects in a class action suit. The second hand buyers where a part of the class action suit despite the fact that there were a non-transfer-clause in the original agreed documents between the first hand buyers and the company. The most relevant part of the ruling is the supreme court of Sweden’s reasoning regarding the second hand buyers right to assert the rights of the original agreed documents towards the company in question, despite the existence of the non-transfer-clause.
The court came to the conclusion that the non-transfer-clause shouldn’t affect the second hand buyer’s right to assert the rights of the original agreed documents towards the company. The court also came to that conclusion in a rather unusual way since they, for an example, didn’t rule the non-transfer-clause as excessive. The reasoning behind this conclusion leads to the effect that the second hand buyers is considered to have bought the rights of the original agreed document together with the object of the second hand trade, without being a legal party of the original document.
This seem to have the effect that rights following an agreed document, such as a warranty, is considered a part of the object of the trade rather than a contractual clause. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8874571
- author
- Olofsson, Adam LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20161
- year
- 2016
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Köprätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8874571
- date added to LUP
- 2016-07-04 12:14:23
- date last changed
- 2016-07-04 12:14:23
@misc{8874571,
abstract = {{A warranty in B2C-relations regarding constitutes a major increase of the consumers rights. It Is stated in the KKL 21 § that a businessman should be held liable for original- as well as later occurring faults in the product for the entirety of the prearranged course of time. In addition to this, the KKL in its 20a § does already contain a form of warranty regulated in law where defects who appear within six months after the product is handed over to the consumer is presumed to be original defects.
The second hand trade of the same B2C-sold product is instead subject to the optional regulations of Köpagen, given that the second hand trade has not been a subject to the vendors business operations. Köplagen does not include any previous mentioned warranty regulated in law and constitutes of an optional law, which actually enables the negotiating of lesser terms than what is in Köplagen originally stated.
This essay, first and foremost, identifies what consequences a second hand trade, between consumers, has on a businessman’s stated warranty. Could the second hand buyer invoke the businessman’s stated warrany despite the lack of an contract between them. And if so, on what grounds?
The main principle of Swedish law regarding transfers of contractual rights is that a creditor is free to transfer his right to whomever he wants, as long as the transfers doesn’t lead to any damages on the debtor’s behalf. A consumer is hence, regarding a warranty stated by a businessman, free to transfer the rights of the warranty as he likes, as long as the businessman doesn’t suffer any damage due to the transfer.
On the 22nd of December in 2015 the supreme court of Sweden delivered a vital ruling in regards to the purpose of this essay. The circumstances in the dispute regarded real estate defects where consumers, both first hand and second hand traders, had sued the company responsible for the real estate defects in a class action suit. The second hand buyers where a part of the class action suit despite the fact that there were a non-transfer-clause in the original agreed documents between the first hand buyers and the company. The most relevant part of the ruling is the supreme court of Sweden’s reasoning regarding the second hand buyers right to assert the rights of the original agreed documents towards the company in question, despite the existence of the non-transfer-clause.
The court came to the conclusion that the non-transfer-clause shouldn’t affect the second hand buyer’s right to assert the rights of the original agreed documents towards the company. The court also came to that conclusion in a rather unusual way since they, for an example, didn’t rule the non-transfer-clause as excessive. The reasoning behind this conclusion leads to the effect that the second hand buyers is considered to have bought the rights of the original agreed document together with the object of the second hand trade, without being a legal party of the original document.
This seem to have the effect that rights following an agreed document, such as a warranty, is considered a part of the object of the trade rather than a contractual clause.}},
author = {{Olofsson, Adam}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Myresjöhusavgörandets påverkan på konsumenträttsliga garantiutfästelser}},
year = {{2016}},
}