Oaktsamt eller utom kontroll? - En undersökning av de subjektiva ansvarsförutsättningarna inom den allmänna avtalsrätten
(2020) LAGF03 20202Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- En på senare tid omdiskuterad fråga är om skadeståndsskyldighet vid
avtalsbrott i allmänhet förutsätter oaktsamhet från den avtalsbrytande parten
eller om skadeståndsskyldigheten bygger på någon annan subjektiv
ansvarsgrund. Rätten att göra påföljder gällande vid avtalsbrott är en central
del av avtalsrätten och för att skadeståndsskyldighet ska uppstå vid avtalsbrott
krävs det att flertalet rekvisit är uppfyllda. Denna uppsats syftar till att utreda
om det, inom den allmänna avtalsrätten, krävs att en avtalsbrytande part varit
oaktsam för att skadeståndsskyldighet ska uppstå.
Den allmänna avtalsrätten är sparsamt reglerad i Sverige och en stor del av
gällande rätt utgörs av allmänna rättsliga principer. Flertalet avtalstyper är
... (More) - En på senare tid omdiskuterad fråga är om skadeståndsskyldighet vid
avtalsbrott i allmänhet förutsätter oaktsamhet från den avtalsbrytande parten
eller om skadeståndsskyldigheten bygger på någon annan subjektiv
ansvarsgrund. Rätten att göra påföljder gällande vid avtalsbrott är en central
del av avtalsrätten och för att skadeståndsskyldighet ska uppstå vid avtalsbrott
krävs det att flertalet rekvisit är uppfyllda. Denna uppsats syftar till att utreda
om det, inom den allmänna avtalsrätten, krävs att en avtalsbrytande part varit
oaktsam för att skadeståndsskyldighet ska uppstå.
Den allmänna avtalsrätten är sparsamt reglerad i Sverige och en stor del av
gällande rätt utgörs av allmänna rättsliga principer. Flertalet avtalstyper är
specialreglerade där den subjektiva ansvarsgrunden för skadestånd regleras
särskilt. Ansvarsgrunder som vanligen återfinns i svensk rätt är culpaansvar,
kontrollansvar, presumtionsansvar och strikt ansvar. Svensk skadeståndsrätt
bygger i grunden på ett culpaansvar vilket stadgas i 2 kap 1 §
skadeståndslagen. Denna bestämmelse gäller emellertid inte om annat följer
av annan lag eller av rättsliga principer. Inom svensk rättsvetenskap råder det
oenighet kring huruvida det finns en rättslig princip som stadgar en annan
subjektiv ansvarsgrund än culpaansvaret. Det finns en samstämmig
uppfattning att oaktsamma avtalsbrott leder till skadeståndsansvar, men vissa
rättsvetare menar emellertid att skadeståndsskyldigheten sträcker sig längre.
I NJA 2020 s. 115 konstaterade HD att skadestånd vid avtalsbrott i allmänhet
förutsätter oaktsamhet. Dessa domskäl utgör emellertid obiter dictum enligt
vissa rättsvetare och är därmed inte prejudicerande. Andra rättsvetare menar
däremot att uttalandet från HD är prejudicerande.
Uppsatsen utmynnar i slutsatsen att den allmänna avtalsrätten bygger på ett
culpakrav i skadeståndsfrågan. Slutsatsen grundar sig dels i NJA 2020 s. 115,
dels i att det saknas rättsligt stöd för att det finns en princip som säger att en annan subjektiv ansvarsgrund ska gälla. Därmed faller bedömningen tillbaka
på skadeståndslagen och dess culpaansvar. (Less) - Abstract
- A frequently debated question is if liability for damages requires negligence
from a contracting party that is in breach of contract or if the basis of liability has another form. The right to inflict sanctions on a contract breaching adversary is a key part of contract law and several necessary conditions need to be fulfilled for a party to be liable for damages. The purpose of this essay is to examine if liability for damages within general contract law requires negligence from the contract breaching party.
The general Swedish contract law is scarcely legislated and a major part of
the general contract law consists of legal principles. Several types of contracts
have been separately regulated by law, including the basis of liability.... (More) - A frequently debated question is if liability for damages requires negligence
from a contracting party that is in breach of contract or if the basis of liability has another form. The right to inflict sanctions on a contract breaching adversary is a key part of contract law and several necessary conditions need to be fulfilled for a party to be liable for damages. The purpose of this essay is to examine if liability for damages within general contract law requires negligence from the contract breaching party.
The general Swedish contract law is scarcely legislated and a major part of
the general contract law consists of legal principles. Several types of contracts
have been separately regulated by law, including the basis of liability. The
different kinds of basis of liability existing in Swedish contract law include
responsibility for negligence, control responsibility, responsibility by
presumption and strict liability. Swedish tort law is based on a responsibility
for negligence which is stated in 2 chapter 1 § in the Tort Liability Act (the
Tort Liability Act can also be applied on disputes concerning contractual
liability). However, if a legal principle is stating something else than the Tort
Liability Act, the legal principle is to be given precedence. There is a
dissension within the legal science whether there is a legal principle that states another basis of liability than responsibility for negligence or not. There is a consensus that a party that is negligent when breaching a contract is liable for
damages, but some jurists claim that the basis of liability is stricter. In the
supreme court’s ruling in NJA 2020 s. 115 the court stated that liability for
damages when breaching a contract generally assumes negligence. However,
the reasoning in that verdict constitutes obiter dictum according to some
jurists while others disagree.
The conclusion of the essay is that liability for damages in general contract
law is based on a responsibility for negligence. This conclusion is based partly
on NJA 2020 s. 115, partly on the fact that there is lacking legal support for
the existence of a legal principle stating another basis for liability than the
liability for negligence. Consequently, the assessment will fall back to the
Tort Liability Act and the liability for negligence stated there. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9034164
- author
- Hörnblad, Jonathan LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20202
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- avtalsrätt, skadeståndsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9034164
- date added to LUP
- 2021-02-09 11:48:53
- date last changed
- 2021-02-09 11:48:53
@misc{9034164,
abstract = {{A frequently debated question is if liability for damages requires negligence
from a contracting party that is in breach of contract or if the basis of liability has another form. The right to inflict sanctions on a contract breaching adversary is a key part of contract law and several necessary conditions need to be fulfilled for a party to be liable for damages. The purpose of this essay is to examine if liability for damages within general contract law requires negligence from the contract breaching party.
The general Swedish contract law is scarcely legislated and a major part of
the general contract law consists of legal principles. Several types of contracts
have been separately regulated by law, including the basis of liability. The
different kinds of basis of liability existing in Swedish contract law include
responsibility for negligence, control responsibility, responsibility by
presumption and strict liability. Swedish tort law is based on a responsibility
for negligence which is stated in 2 chapter 1 § in the Tort Liability Act (the
Tort Liability Act can also be applied on disputes concerning contractual
liability). However, if a legal principle is stating something else than the Tort
Liability Act, the legal principle is to be given precedence. There is a
dissension within the legal science whether there is a legal principle that states another basis of liability than responsibility for negligence or not. There is a consensus that a party that is negligent when breaching a contract is liable for
damages, but some jurists claim that the basis of liability is stricter. In the
supreme court’s ruling in NJA 2020 s. 115 the court stated that liability for
damages when breaching a contract generally assumes negligence. However,
the reasoning in that verdict constitutes obiter dictum according to some
jurists while others disagree.
The conclusion of the essay is that liability for damages in general contract
law is based on a responsibility for negligence. This conclusion is based partly
on NJA 2020 s. 115, partly on the fact that there is lacking legal support for
the existence of a legal principle stating another basis for liability than the
liability for negligence. Consequently, the assessment will fall back to the
Tort Liability Act and the liability for negligence stated there.}},
author = {{Hörnblad, Jonathan}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Oaktsamt eller utom kontroll? - En undersökning av de subjektiva ansvarsförutsättningarna inom den allmänna avtalsrätten}},
year = {{2020}},
}