Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Konkretiseringskravet och begreppet rättsförhållande – om kravet på ett angivet rättsförhållande i 1 § LSF

Ahlberg, William LU (2019) JURM02 20192
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Enligt 1 § i Lag (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande ska ett skiljeavtal som avser framtida tvister för att vara giltigt avse ett i skiljeavtalet angivet rättsförhållande. Kravet på att i skiljeavtalet ange ett rättsförhållande kallas konkretiseringskravet. Denna framställning behandlar två centrala aspekter av bestämmelsen i 1 § lag (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande; dels innebörden av konkretiseringskravet, dels begreppet rättsförhållande.
I uppsatsens första del återfinns en redogörelse för relevant rättspraxis där stor vikt läggs vid HD:s senaste avgörande i NJA 2019 s. 171. Rättsfallet analyseras i förhållande till de tidigare prejudikat som HD fastslagit genom bland andra NJA 2007 s. 475, NJA 2010 s. 734 och NJA 2017 s. 226. Vidare... (More)
Enligt 1 § i Lag (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande ska ett skiljeavtal som avser framtida tvister för att vara giltigt avse ett i skiljeavtalet angivet rättsförhållande. Kravet på att i skiljeavtalet ange ett rättsförhållande kallas konkretiseringskravet. Denna framställning behandlar två centrala aspekter av bestämmelsen i 1 § lag (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande; dels innebörden av konkretiseringskravet, dels begreppet rättsförhållande.
I uppsatsens första del återfinns en redogörelse för relevant rättspraxis där stor vikt läggs vid HD:s senaste avgörande i NJA 2019 s. 171. Rättsfallet analyseras i förhållande till de tidigare prejudikat som HD fastslagit genom bland andra NJA 2007 s. 475, NJA 2010 s. 734 och NJA 2017 s. 226. Vidare behandlas kommentarer från doktrinen gällande konkretiseringskravets innebörd och hur detta tillämpats av HD.
Gällande begreppet rättsförhållande innehåller uppsatsen en redogörelse för de olika beståndsdelarna i ett civilrättsligt rättsförhållande med förslag på hur man kan särskilja olika rättsförhållanden från varandra. Frågeställningar rörande hur novation, tilläggsavtal och förändringar i avtalsinnehåll påverkar rättsförhållandets identitet behandlas. Uppsatsen innehåller en redogörelse för rättspraxis där HD behandlat frågan om huruvida rättsliga mellanhavanden ska anses utgöra ett eller flera rättsförhållanden.
Den konklusion som nås är att HD genom sitt avgörande i NJA 2019 s. 171 gör en praxisomläggning i förhållande till den ordning som etablerades genom NJA 2010 s. 734 och NJA 2017 s. 226. HD fastslår att man vid tolkning och tillämpning av konkretiseringskravet numera ska tillämpa en generös och extensiv tolkning i enlighet med den internationella utvecklingen inom skiljerätten. De rättssäkerhetsskäl som av HD tidigare ansågs motivera viss restriktivitet förefaller således ha fått träda tillbaka till förmån för en mer processekonomisk skiljeprocess. Uppsatsen konstaterar vidare att tillämpningen av konkretiseringskravet präglas av viss inkonsekvens och att det efter utgången i NJA 2019 s. 171 fortsatt föreligger ett behov av klargörande uttalanden från HD.
Gällande begreppet rättsförhållande och hur man kan särskilja ett rättsförhållande från ett annat konstateras i uppsatsen att mer tydliga uttalanden i rättspraxis saknas. En metod som föreslås i uppsatsen är att man som utgångspunkt bör klassificera de förpliktelser som ingår i rättsförhållandet. I nästa steg bör man söka bestämma förpliktelsernas relevans i förhållande till avtalsförhållandets mer grundläggande eller essentiella förpliktelser. Uppsatsen konstaterar vidare att en förändring av de förpliktelser som ingår i ett rättsförhållande både kan tänkas innebära att ett nytt rättsförhållande uppstår och att det ursprungliga rättsförhållandet kan bestå med modifierat materiellt innehåll. Det som förefaller vara avgörande är hur stora förändringarna är i förhållande till det ursprungliga avtalet. (Less)
Abstract
According to 1 § of the Swedish Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement regarding future disputes must, in order to be valid, refer to a legal relationship designated in the arbitration agreement. The requirement to refer to a designated legal relationship is termed as the concretisation requirement. This paper evaluates two key aspects of the 1 § of the Swedish Arbitration Act: the scope of the concretisation requirement along with the meaning of the term legal relationship.
The first part of the thesis contains an account of relevant case law. Emphasis is placed on asserting the legal consequences of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in NJA 2019 p. 171. The case is evaluated in relation to earlier precedents pronounced by the... (More)
According to 1 § of the Swedish Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement regarding future disputes must, in order to be valid, refer to a legal relationship designated in the arbitration agreement. The requirement to refer to a designated legal relationship is termed as the concretisation requirement. This paper evaluates two key aspects of the 1 § of the Swedish Arbitration Act: the scope of the concretisation requirement along with the meaning of the term legal relationship.
The first part of the thesis contains an account of relevant case law. Emphasis is placed on asserting the legal consequences of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in NJA 2019 p. 171. The case is evaluated in relation to earlier precedents pronounced by the Supreme court in NJA 2007 s. 475, NJA 2010 p. 734 and NJA 2017 p. 226. The thesis also evaluates comments from legal scholars on the concretisation requirement and how it has been applied by the courts.
With regards to the second aspect of the thesis, the meaning of the term legal relationship in 1 § of the Swedish arbitration act, the thesis contains a comprehensive account of the different constituents of a contractual legal relationship, addressing the issue on how to distinguish one legal relationship from another legal relationship. The thesis examines issues such as how supplementary agreements, alterations to the contract and novation affect the identity of a legal relationship. The thesis further contains an account of case law where the Supreme Court dealt with cases where the question of how to distinguish a legal relationship from another legal relationship has been addressed.
The conclusion reached is that the Supreme Court by its decision in NJA 2019 p. 171 have made another interpretation of the concretisation requirement in relation to the interpretation established through NJA 2010 p. 734 and NJA 2017 p. 226. The Supreme Court now establishes that the concretisation requirement should be interpreted and applied extensively in accordance with the development of international commercial arbitration. The reasons behind the earlier, more narrow interpretation- legal certainty- seem to have had to resign in favour of procedural economy. The thesis further reaches the conclusion that the application of the concretisation requirement is characterized by some inconsistency and that after the decision in NJA 2019 p. 171 some uncertainty remains and there is a need for further statements and clarifications by the Supreme Court.
Regarding the term legal relationship and on how to distinguish one legal relationship from another legal relationship, the thesis concludes that more clear statements are absent in current case law. One method presented in the thesis is to primarily classify all the obligations within the legal relationship. In the next step, one should attempt to determine the relevance of each obligation in relation to the more essential or primal obligations of the contractual relationship. The thesis further concludes that alterations to or of the obligations within a contractual legal relationship can cause various legal implications. Altering the obligations may cause a new legal relationship to arise, but it is also possible that the original legal relationship remains unaltered, however, with modifications to its material content. What seems to be decisive for the assessment is how substantial the alterations are in relation to the original agreement. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Ahlberg, William LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The concretisation requirement and the term legal relationship – about the requirement to specify a legal relationship in 1 of the Swedish Arbitration Act
course
JURM02 20192
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
civilprocessrätt, civil procedure
language
Swedish
id
8999144
date added to LUP
2020-01-28 09:34:22
date last changed
2020-01-28 09:34:22
@misc{8999144,
  abstract     = {{According to 1 § of the Swedish Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement regarding future disputes must, in order to be valid, refer to a legal relationship designated in the arbitration agreement. The requirement to refer to a designated legal relationship is termed as the concretisation requirement. This paper evaluates two key aspects of the 1 § of the Swedish Arbitration Act: the scope of the concretisation requirement along with the meaning of the term legal relationship.
The first part of the thesis contains an account of relevant case law. Emphasis is placed on asserting the legal consequences of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in NJA 2019 p. 171. The case is evaluated in relation to earlier precedents pronounced by the Supreme court in NJA 2007 s. 475, NJA 2010 p. 734 and NJA 2017 p. 226. The thesis also evaluates comments from legal scholars on the concretisation requirement and how it has been applied by the courts.
With regards to the second aspect of the thesis, the meaning of the term legal relationship in 1 § of the Swedish arbitration act, the thesis contains a comprehensive account of the different constituents of a contractual legal relationship, addressing the issue on how to distinguish one legal relationship from another legal relationship. The thesis examines issues such as how supplementary agreements, alterations to the contract and novation affect the identity of a legal relationship. The thesis further contains an account of case law where the Supreme Court dealt with cases where the question of how to distinguish a legal relationship from another legal relationship has been addressed.
The conclusion reached is that the Supreme Court by its decision in NJA 2019 p. 171 have made another interpretation of the concretisation requirement in relation to the interpretation established through NJA 2010 p. 734 and NJA 2017 p. 226. The Supreme Court now establishes that the concretisation requirement should be interpreted and applied extensively in accordance with the development of international commercial arbitration. The reasons behind the earlier, more narrow interpretation- legal certainty- seem to have had to resign in favour of procedural economy. The thesis further reaches the conclusion that the application of the concretisation requirement is characterized by some inconsistency and that after the decision in NJA 2019 p. 171 some uncertainty remains and there is a need for further statements and clarifications by the Supreme Court.
Regarding the term legal relationship and on how to distinguish one legal relationship from another legal relationship, the thesis concludes that more clear statements are absent in current case law. One method presented in the thesis is to primarily classify all the obligations within the legal relationship. In the next step, one should attempt to determine the relevance of each obligation in relation to the more essential or primal obligations of the contractual relationship. The thesis further concludes that alterations to or of the obligations within a contractual legal relationship can cause various legal implications. Altering the obligations may cause a new legal relationship to arise, but it is also possible that the original legal relationship remains unaltered, however, with modifications to its material content. What seems to be decisive for the assessment is how substantial the alterations are in relation to the original agreement.}},
  author       = {{Ahlberg, William}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Konkretiseringskravet och begreppet rättsförhållande – om kravet på ett angivet rättsförhållande i 1 § LSF}},
  year         = {{2019}},
}