Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Entreprenadrättslig prisjustering i ljuset av hardship? - Särskilt om rekvisiten om väsentlighet och oförutsebarhet i AB 04 kap. 6 § 3 och AB 25 kap. 5 § 15

Skörvald, Tilde LU (2026) JURM02 20261
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I denna uppsats undersöks hur prisjusteringsbestämmelsen i AB 04 och AB 25 (som är avsedd att ersätta AB 04) ska tolkas, med särskilt fokus på om rekvisiten om väsentlighet och oförutsebarhet kan tolkas i ljuset av hardshipklausulerna i DCFR, UPICC och PECL. Flera författare i den juridiska litteraturen uppmärksammar likheter mellan regleringarna. De aktuella bestämmelserna, AB 04 kap. 6 § 3 och AB 25 kap. 5 § 15, föreskriver att avtalat pris ska ändras vid vissa specifikt angivna situationer, under förutsättning att kostnadsändringen varit oförutsebar och väsentlig. Hardshipklausulerna föreskriver däremot en omförhandlingsskyldighet vid en fundamental och oförutsebar rubbning av avtalsbalansen. Trots att regleringarna vid första anblick... (More)
I denna uppsats undersöks hur prisjusteringsbestämmelsen i AB 04 och AB 25 (som är avsedd att ersätta AB 04) ska tolkas, med särskilt fokus på om rekvisiten om väsentlighet och oförutsebarhet kan tolkas i ljuset av hardshipklausulerna i DCFR, UPICC och PECL. Flera författare i den juridiska litteraturen uppmärksammar likheter mellan regleringarna. De aktuella bestämmelserna, AB 04 kap. 6 § 3 och AB 25 kap. 5 § 15, föreskriver att avtalat pris ska ändras vid vissa specifikt angivna situationer, under förutsättning att kostnadsändringen varit oförutsebar och väsentlig. Hardshipklausulerna föreskriver däremot en omförhandlingsskyldighet vid en fundamental och oförutsebar rubbning av avtalsbalansen. Trots att regleringarna vid första anblick framstår lika, identifieras genom en jämförande analys av rekvisiten om väsentlighet och oförutsebarhet flera avgörande skillnader.
Med en rättsdogmatisk metod kan den tolkningsmetod som HD etablerat för tolkningen av de allmänna bestämmelserna identifieras. Tolkningsmetoden är av särskild betydelse för undersökningen av prisjusteringsbestämmelserna i AB 04 och AB 25, varför uppsatsen disponeras utifrån denna. Det kan konstateras att bestämmelsernas ordalydelse inte ger tillräcklig vägledning för flera av rekvisiten, däribland rekvisiten om oförutsebarhet och väsentlighet. Genom en systematisk tolkning kan dock fastställas att fackmässighetsbegreppet bör utgöra utgångspunkt för bedömningen om en kostnadsändring varit oförutsebar. Vidare tyder standardavtalets systematik på att väsentlighetsrekvisitet är specifikt utformat, vilket talar för att endast relationen mellan kostnadsändringen och summan av alla utgifter för entreprenaden ska vara avgörande. För AB 25 är det något annorlunda, eftersom det redan av ordalydelsen framgår att kostnadsändringen ska vara väsentlig i förhållande till kontraktssumman.
Gällande möjligheterna att använda hardshipklausulerna som tolkningshjälp kan konstateras att det är möjligt i viss mån. Vilken ställning de internationella regleringarna ska anses ha i svensk rätt är omdiskuterad. Somliga menar att principsamlingarna DCFR, UPICC och PECL utgör rättskällor i svensk rätt, medan andra förespråkar att de endast kan användas som stödargument för en redan identifierad lösning. Undersökningen visar att hardshipklausulerna inte bör användas som tolkningshjälp för väsentlighetsrekvisitet, eftersom regleringarna skiljer sig åt både till deras utformning och innebörd. Däremot kan hardshipklausulerna användas som tolkningshjälp för oförutsebarhetsrekvisitet. Bedömningen av om rekvisitet är uppfyllt ska därmed vara objektiv och utgå från vad en förnuftig yrkesutövare skulle kunnat förutse. Vidare bör avtalstidpunkten utgöra den relevanta tidpunkten för bedömningen. En sådan tolkning framstår också rimlig, eftersom avtalstidpunkten utgör en klar och slutlig referenspunkt för parternas rättigheter och skyldigheter samt avtalsinnehållet i stort. (Less)
Abstract
This thesis examines how the price adjustment provision in AB 04 and AB 25 (which is intended to replace AB 04) should be interpreted, with a particular focus on whether the provision can be interpreted in light of the hardship clauses in DCFR, UPICC and PECL. Several authors in the legal literature have noted similarities between these regulations. The relevant provisions, AB 04 Chapter 6, Section 3 and AB 25 Chapter 5, Section 15, stipulate that the agreed price shall be adjusted in specifically stated situations, provided that the change in costs was unforeseeable and substantial. The hardship clauses, on the other hand, provide for an obligation to renegotiate in the event of a fundamental and unforeseeable alteration of the... (More)
This thesis examines how the price adjustment provision in AB 04 and AB 25 (which is intended to replace AB 04) should be interpreted, with a particular focus on whether the provision can be interpreted in light of the hardship clauses in DCFR, UPICC and PECL. Several authors in the legal literature have noted similarities between these regulations. The relevant provisions, AB 04 Chapter 6, Section 3 and AB 25 Chapter 5, Section 15, stipulate that the agreed price shall be adjusted in specifically stated situations, provided that the change in costs was unforeseeable and substantial. The hardship clauses, on the other hand, provide for an obligation to renegotiate in the event of a fundamental and unforeseeable alteration of the equilibrium of the contract. Although the regulations appear similar at first glance, a comparative analysis identifies several crucial differences.
Using a legal dogmatic method, it is possible to identify the interpretive method established by the Swedish Supreme Court for interpreting construction contracts. This method is of particular importance for the examination of the price adjustment provisions in AB 04 and AB 25, which is why this thesis is structured around it. It can be noted that the wording of the provisions does not provide sufficient guidance for several requirements, including those regarding unforeseeability and substantiality. Through a systematic interpretation, however, it can be determined that the concept of a professional standard should serve as the starting point for assessing whether a change in costs was unforeseeable. Furthermore, the structure of AB 04 implies that the requirement of a substantial change in costs is specifically designed, which indicates that only the relation between the change in costs and the total of all expenses should be considered. For AB 25, the situation is somewhat different, as the wording already makes it clear that the cost change must be substantial in relation to the contract amount.
With regard to the possibility of using hardship clauses in the interpretation, it can be noted that this is possible only to a certain extent. The status of these international regulations under Swedish law is a matter of debate. Some argue that DCFR, UPICC and PECL constitute sources of law, while others maintain that they can only be used as supporting arguments for an already identified solution. The study shows that hardship clauses should not be used as an aid to interpretation for the substantial requirement, since the regulations differ in both form and meaning. However, hardship clauses can be used as an interpretive aid for the unforeseeability requirement. The assessment of whether the requirement is met must therefore be objective and based on what a reasonable professional could have foreseen. Furthermore, the time of the conclusion of the contract should constitute the relevant point in time for the assessment. Such an interpretation also appears reasonable, since this timestamp constitutes a clear and definitive reference point for the party´s rights and obligations as well as the content of the agreement as a whole. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Skörvald, Tilde LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Price adjustment in construction contracts in light of hardship?
course
JURM02 20261
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Förmögenhetsrätt, entreprenadrätt, prisjustering, AB 04, AB 25, hardship
language
Swedish
id
9226860
date added to LUP
2026-06-10 17:26:07
date last changed
2026-06-10 17:26:07
@misc{9226860,
  abstract     = {{This thesis examines how the price adjustment provision in AB 04 and AB 25 (which is intended to replace AB 04) should be interpreted, with a particular focus on whether the provision can be interpreted in light of the hardship clauses in DCFR, UPICC and PECL. Several authors in the legal literature have noted similarities between these regulations. The relevant provisions, AB 04 Chapter 6, Section 3 and AB 25 Chapter 5, Section 15, stipulate that the agreed price shall be adjusted in specifically stated situations, provided that the change in costs was unforeseeable and substantial. The hardship clauses, on the other hand, provide for an obligation to renegotiate in the event of a fundamental and unforeseeable alteration of the equilibrium of the contract. Although the regulations appear similar at first glance, a comparative analysis identifies several crucial differences.
Using a legal dogmatic method, it is possible to identify the interpretive method established by the Swedish Supreme Court for interpreting construction contracts. This method is of particular importance for the examination of the price adjustment provisions in AB 04 and AB 25, which is why this thesis is structured around it. It can be noted that the wording of the provisions does not provide sufficient guidance for several requirements, including those regarding unforeseeability and substantiality. Through a systematic interpretation, however, it can be determined that the concept of a professional standard should serve as the starting point for assessing whether a change in costs was unforeseeable. Furthermore, the structure of AB 04 implies that the requirement of a substantial change in costs is specifically designed, which indicates that only the relation between the change in costs and the total of all expenses should be considered. For AB 25, the situation is somewhat different, as the wording already makes it clear that the cost change must be substantial in relation to the contract amount. 
With regard to the possibility of using hardship clauses in the interpretation, it can be noted that this is possible only to a certain extent. The status of these international regulations under Swedish law is a matter of debate. Some argue that DCFR, UPICC and PECL constitute sources of law, while others maintain that they can only be used as supporting arguments for an already identified solution. The study shows that hardship clauses should not be used as an aid to interpretation for the substantial requirement, since the regulations differ in both form and meaning. However, hardship clauses can be used as an interpretive aid for the unforeseeability requirement. The assessment of whether the requirement is met must therefore be objective and based on what a reasonable professional could have foreseen. Furthermore, the time of the conclusion of the contract should constitute the relevant point in time for the assessment. Such an interpretation also appears reasonable, since this timestamp constitutes a clear and definitive reference point for the party´s rights and obligations as well as the content of the agreement as a whole.}},
  author       = {{Skörvald, Tilde}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Entreprenadrättslig prisjustering i ljuset av hardship? - Särskilt om rekvisiten om väsentlighet och oförutsebarhet i AB 04 kap. 6 § 3 och AB 25 kap. 5 § 15}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}