Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

När tystnad blir avtal – Svarsplikt och passivitet i ljuset av partsställning och principerna om lojalitet och vigilans

Hjelm, Elsa LU (2024) LAGF03 20241
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
Binding contracts arise from identical declarations of intent. When one party has made an offer and another party has made an acceptance, a contract has been formed. The offer must be binding and the acceptance must be qualified and submitted within the stipulated period for acceptance. If this is not the case, it may be a situation that generates a duty to reply. The duty to reply means that a party must notify their counterparty of the fact that there has been a misunderstanding regarding the existence of the contract and if the party fails to do so, it will be bound by the contract as understood by the other party, despite its passivity.

The rules on the duty to reply express the principles of loyalty and vigilance. Together, these... (More)
Binding contracts arise from identical declarations of intent. When one party has made an offer and another party has made an acceptance, a contract has been formed. The offer must be binding and the acceptance must be qualified and submitted within the stipulated period for acceptance. If this is not the case, it may be a situation that generates a duty to reply. The duty to reply means that a party must notify their counterparty of the fact that there has been a misunderstanding regarding the existence of the contract and if the party fails to do so, it will be bound by the contract as understood by the other party, despite its passivity.

The rules on the duty to reply express the principles of loyalty and vigilance. Together, these principles aim to ensure that a party looks after its own interests as well as those of its counterparty by being loyal and vigilant. Both principles place higher demands on juridical persons than on a neutral person, which leads one to speculate whether the rules regarding the duty to reply should also place higher demands on such stronger parties.

Using the method of legal dogmatics, including critical legal dogmatics, and based on the aforementioned principles, this paper clarifies questions about when the duty to reply arises and whether the rules apply differently depending on the strength of the parties. The investigation shows that the duty to reply arises for all parties that fulfill the two subjective requisites, but that situations where the requisites are considered to be fulfilled may differ. A purposive interpretation based on the principles would imply that stronger parties are subject to higher requirements in order to fulfill their duty of loyalty and duty of vigilance. Opinions differ as to whether this is the case and to what extent the requirements are higher. Furthermore, it is argued that the position of the parties ought not to be the deciding factor in determining which party is seen as the strongest, but rather their competence.

Finally, the paper ends with a de lege ferenda discussion of how the rules regarding the duty to reply, and thus also acceptance by silence, should be designed. Here too, the starting point is the principles of loyalty and vigilance. The conclusion reached is that equal application of the rules, without considering the respective strength of the parties, would lead to imbalance and injustice. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Avtalsbundenhet uppstår genom likalydande viljeförklaringar. När en part har givit ett anbud och en annan part en accept, har ett avtal kommit till stånd. Anbudet ska vara bindande och accepten ska vara ren och lämnas inom acceptfristen. Är så inte fallet kan det vara fråga om en sådan situation som genererar svarsplikt. Svarsplikt innebär att en part måste uppmärksamma sin motpart på att ett missförstånd har skett avseende avtalsbundenheten och om parten underlåter att göra det så blir den bunden till avtalet såsom motparten har förstått det, trots sin passivitet.

Reglerna om svarsplikt ger uttryck för principerna om lojalitet och vigilans. Principerna syftar gemensamt till att säkerställa att en part tar vara på såväl sina egna... (More)
Avtalsbundenhet uppstår genom likalydande viljeförklaringar. När en part har givit ett anbud och en annan part en accept, har ett avtal kommit till stånd. Anbudet ska vara bindande och accepten ska vara ren och lämnas inom acceptfristen. Är så inte fallet kan det vara fråga om en sådan situation som genererar svarsplikt. Svarsplikt innebär att en part måste uppmärksamma sin motpart på att ett missförstånd har skett avseende avtalsbundenheten och om parten underlåter att göra det så blir den bunden till avtalet såsom motparten har förstått det, trots sin passivitet.

Reglerna om svarsplikt ger uttryck för principerna om lojalitet och vigilans. Principerna syftar gemensamt till att säkerställa att en part tar vara på såväl sina egna intressen som sin motparts genom att vara lojal och vigilant. Båda principerna ställer högre krav på näringsidkare än på privatpersoner, varpå en kan spekulera kring ifall även reglerna om svarsplikt borde ställa högre krav på sådana starkare parter.

Med hjälp av rättsdogmatisk, och däribland kritisk rättsdogmatisk, metod och med avstamp i de ovan nämnda principerna reder uppsatsen ut frågor kring när svarsplikt uppkommer och ifall reglerna gäller olika beroende på partsställning. Utredningen visar att svarsplikt uppkommer för samtliga parter om det dubbla insiktsrekvisitet uppfylls, men att situationer då rekvisitet anses uppfyllt kan skilja sig åt. En ändamålstolkning utifrån principerna skulle innebära att starkare parter åläggs högre krav för att uppfylla sin lojalitetsplikt och vigilansplikt. Om så är fallet och i vilken mån kraven är högre, råder det olika åsikter om. Vidare framförs att det inte ska vara just partsställningen som är avgörande för vilken part som ska ses som starkast, utan snarare kompetensen hos respektive part.

Uppsatsen mynnar slutligen ut i ett resonemang de lege ferenda om hur reglerna om svarsplikt, och därmed även avtalsbundenhet via passivitet, bör vara utformade. Avstamp tas även här i lojalitetsprincipen och vigilansprincipen. Slutsatsen som nås är att en lika tillämpning av regelverket, oberoende av parternas respektive styrka, skulle innebära obalans och orättvisa. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hjelm, Elsa LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20241
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
avtalsrätt, avtalsbundenhet, passivitet
language
Swedish
id
9153072
date added to LUP
2024-06-26 11:51:20
date last changed
2024-06-26 11:51:20
@misc{9153072,
  abstract     = {{Binding contracts arise from identical declarations of intent. When one party has made an offer and another party has made an acceptance, a contract has been formed. The offer must be binding and the acceptance must be qualified and submitted within the stipulated period for acceptance. If this is not the case, it may be a situation that generates a duty to reply. The duty to reply means that a party must notify their counterparty of the fact that there has been a misunderstanding regarding the existence of the contract and if the party fails to do so, it will be bound by the contract as understood by the other party, despite its passivity.

The rules on the duty to reply express the principles of loyalty and vigilance. Together, these principles aim to ensure that a party looks after its own interests as well as those of its counterparty by being loyal and vigilant. Both principles place higher demands on juridical persons than on a neutral person, which leads one to speculate whether the rules regarding the duty to reply should also place higher demands on such stronger parties. 

Using the method of legal dogmatics, including critical legal dogmatics, and based on the aforementioned principles, this paper clarifies questions about when the duty to reply arises and whether the rules apply differently depending on the strength of the parties. The investigation shows that the duty to reply arises for all parties that fulfill the two subjective requisites, but that situations where the requisites are considered to be fulfilled may differ. A purposive interpretation based on the principles would imply that stronger parties are subject to higher requirements in order to fulfill their duty of loyalty and duty of vigilance. Opinions differ as to whether this is the case and to what extent the requirements are higher. Furthermore, it is argued that the position of the parties ought not to be the deciding factor in determining which party is seen as the strongest, but rather their competence.

Finally, the paper ends with a de lege ferenda discussion of how the rules regarding the duty to reply, and thus also acceptance by silence, should be designed. Here too, the starting point is the principles of loyalty and vigilance. The conclusion reached is that equal application of the rules, without considering the respective strength of the parties, would lead to imbalance and injustice.}},
  author       = {{Hjelm, Elsa}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{När tystnad blir avtal – Svarsplikt och passivitet i ljuset av partsställning och principerna om lojalitet och vigilans}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}