Förutsebarhet och jämkning – vid ändrade förhållanden i kommersiella avtal
(2025) JURM02 20252Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- Many contracts are exposed to the risk that unforeseen events occur after the conclusion of the agreement, affecting the parties’ ability to perform their contractual obligations. Such events are commonly referred to in contract law as changed circumstances and may give rise to a situation in which one party seeks relief from its obligations, while the other insists on the continued binding force of the original contract. This contractual problem may be addressed through the application of Section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act, which allows for the adjustment of contractual terms that have become unconscionable as a result of subsequent circumstances.
Adjustment of contractual terms entails that the contract is given a different... (More) - Many contracts are exposed to the risk that unforeseen events occur after the conclusion of the agreement, affecting the parties’ ability to perform their contractual obligations. Such events are commonly referred to in contract law as changed circumstances and may give rise to a situation in which one party seeks relief from its obligations, while the other insists on the continued binding force of the original contract. This contractual problem may be addressed through the application of Section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act, which allows for the adjustment of contractual terms that have become unconscionable as a result of subsequent circumstances.
Adjustment of contractual terms entails that the contract is given a different content than what the parties anticipated at the time of its conclusion. Moreover, the provision provides limited guidance as to what constitutes unconscionability. Against this background, the thesis addresses two research questions: (1) how the possibility of adjusting contractual terms in the event of changed circumstances challenges the parties’ ability to foresee the consequences of the contract, and (2) to what extent the assessment of unconscionability under Section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act is predictable when such adjustment occurs.
According to the traditional principle of contractual binding force, contracts should generally remain binding despite changed circumstances, a principle justified by the need for predictability, particularly in commercial contexts. Adjustment therefore constitutes an exception to contractual binding force and an interference with the parties’ ability to foresee the contractual consequences. However, if contractual binding force is instead understood as an obligation to perform the contract in accordance with its main purpose, adjustment may in certain situations contribute to maintaining predictability when changed circumstances occur.
Section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act identifies unconscionability as the sole requirement for contractual adjustment. In legal doctrine, attempts have been made to systematise the assessment through principles or sets of criteria. A review of relevant case law indicates that considerations such as principles of equivalence, vigilance and loyalty, as well as issues relating to the foreseeability of the course of events, frequently recur in the assessment of unconscionability. However, no uniform method or analytical framework can be identified. The circumstances that are accorded decisive weight vary significantly depending on the facts of the individual case.
The predictability of the assessment of unconscionability can therefore generally be described as low, a situation further reinforced by the lack of guiding case law. While this may appear problematic, it must also be understood as a partly inevitable consequence of the provision’s intentionally flexible design and its focus on fairness in the individual case. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Många avtal löper en risk att oväntade händelser inträffar efter avtalsslutet som påverkar parternas möjlighet att fullgöra avtalet. Sådana händelser benämns inom avtalsrätten som ändrade förhållanden och kan ge upphov till en situation där den ena avtalsparten vill befrias från sina avtalsförpliktelser, medan den andra avtalsparten vill att avtalsbundenheten kvarstår. Denna avtalsrättsliga problematik kan lösas genom tillämpning av 36 § avtalslagen, som medger jämkning av avtalsvillkor som blivit oskäliga till följd av senare inträf-fade omständigheter.
Jämkning innebär dock att avtalet ges ett annat innehåll än vad parterna räknade med vid avtalsslutet. Vidare saknar bestämmelsen närmre vägledning för vad som ska anses oskäligt. Mot... (More) - Många avtal löper en risk att oväntade händelser inträffar efter avtalsslutet som påverkar parternas möjlighet att fullgöra avtalet. Sådana händelser benämns inom avtalsrätten som ändrade förhållanden och kan ge upphov till en situation där den ena avtalsparten vill befrias från sina avtalsförpliktelser, medan den andra avtalsparten vill att avtalsbundenheten kvarstår. Denna avtalsrättsliga problematik kan lösas genom tillämpning av 36 § avtalslagen, som medger jämkning av avtalsvillkor som blivit oskäliga till följd av senare inträf-fade omständigheter.
Jämkning innebär dock att avtalet ges ett annat innehåll än vad parterna räknade med vid avtalsslutet. Vidare saknar bestämmelsen närmre vägledning för vad som ska anses oskäligt. Mot denna bakgrund behandlar uppsatsen två frågeställningar: (1) hur möjligheten att jämka avtalsvillkor vid ändrade förhållanden utmanar parternas möjlighet att förutse avtalets konsekvenser, och (2) i vilken mån oskälighetsbedömningen enligt 36 § avtalslagen är förutsebar när sådan jämkning sker.
Enligt den traditionella principen om avtalsbundenhet ska avtal som utgångspunkt bestå, trots ändrade förhållanden. Principen motiveras av behovet av förutsebarhet, vilket är särskilt framträdande i affärssammanhang. Jämkning framstår därmed som ett undantag från avtalsbundenheten och ett ingrepp i parternas möjlighet att förutse avtalets konsekvenser. Om avtalsbundenheten i stället förstås som en skyldighet att uppfylla avtalet i enlighet med dess huvudsakliga ändamål kan jämkning däremot bidra till att stärka förutsebarheten när ändrade förhållanden inträffat. Jämkning kan därmed både inskränka och stärka förutsebarheten, beroende på vilka förväntningar på avtalsrelationen som avses.
I 36 § avtalslagen anges oskälighet som det enda rekvisitet för att jämkning ska kunna ske. I doktrinen har försök gjorts att systematisera bedömningen genom principer eller rekvisit. Vid en genomgång av relevant rättspraxis kan utläsas att exempelvis principer om ekvivalens, vigilans och lojalitet samt frågor om möjligheten att förutse händelseutvecklingen återkommer i oskälighetsbedömningen. Däremot kan ingen enhetlig metod eller ram för prövningen utläsas. Vilka omständigheter som tillmäts avgörande betydelse varierar i hög grad beroende på omständigheterna i det enskilda fallet.
Förutsebarheten i oskälighetsbedömningen får därför generellt beskrivas som låg, vilket ytterligare förstärks av bristen på vägledande praxis. Detta kan upp-fattas som problematiskt, men måste samtidigt förstås som en delvis ofrånkomlig följd av bestämmelsens avsiktliga flexibilitet och dess fokus på skälig-het i det enskilda fallet. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9217417
- author
- Vedin, Sara LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Predictability and Contractual Adjustment – in the Event of Changed Circumstances in Commercial Contracts
- course
- JURM02 20252
- year
- 2025
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- avtalsrätt, civilrätt, förmögenhetsrätt, ändrade förhållanden (en. changed circumstances), jämkning, generalklausulen, 36 § avtalslagen
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9217417
- date added to LUP
- 2026-01-26 12:13:04
- date last changed
- 2026-01-26 12:13:04
@misc{9217417,
abstract = {{Many contracts are exposed to the risk that unforeseen events occur after the conclusion of the agreement, affecting the parties’ ability to perform their contractual obligations. Such events are commonly referred to in contract law as changed circumstances and may give rise to a situation in which one party seeks relief from its obligations, while the other insists on the continued binding force of the original contract. This contractual problem may be addressed through the application of Section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act, which allows for the adjustment of contractual terms that have become unconscionable as a result of subsequent circumstances.
Adjustment of contractual terms entails that the contract is given a different content than what the parties anticipated at the time of its conclusion. Moreover, the provision provides limited guidance as to what constitutes unconscionability. Against this background, the thesis addresses two research questions: (1) how the possibility of adjusting contractual terms in the event of changed circumstances challenges the parties’ ability to foresee the consequences of the contract, and (2) to what extent the assessment of unconscionability under Section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act is predictable when such adjustment occurs.
According to the traditional principle of contractual binding force, contracts should generally remain binding despite changed circumstances, a principle justified by the need for predictability, particularly in commercial contexts. Adjustment therefore constitutes an exception to contractual binding force and an interference with the parties’ ability to foresee the contractual consequences. However, if contractual binding force is instead understood as an obligation to perform the contract in accordance with its main purpose, adjustment may in certain situations contribute to maintaining predictability when changed circumstances occur.
Section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act identifies unconscionability as the sole requirement for contractual adjustment. In legal doctrine, attempts have been made to systematise the assessment through principles or sets of criteria. A review of relevant case law indicates that considerations such as principles of equivalence, vigilance and loyalty, as well as issues relating to the foreseeability of the course of events, frequently recur in the assessment of unconscionability. However, no uniform method or analytical framework can be identified. The circumstances that are accorded decisive weight vary significantly depending on the facts of the individual case.
The predictability of the assessment of unconscionability can therefore generally be described as low, a situation further reinforced by the lack of guiding case law. While this may appear problematic, it must also be understood as a partly inevitable consequence of the provision’s intentionally flexible design and its focus on fairness in the individual case.}},
author = {{Vedin, Sara}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Förutsebarhet och jämkning – vid ändrade förhållanden i kommersiella avtal}},
year = {{2025}},
}