Advanced

Obehörig vinst i svensk rätt

Malmberg, Suzanne LU (2010) JURM01 20102
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Rättsprincipen obehörig vinst, eller vinstregeln som den också kallas, har jämfört med andra europeiska rättsordningar haft en marginell betydelse i Sverige. Även om principen under en lång period varit föremål för skarp kritik från rättevetenskapligt håll, så har den på senare tid fått förnyad aktualitet då den dykt upp i flertalet rättsfall. I uppsatsen görs därför en översyn av svensk lagstiftning, praxis och doktrin för att utreda vilken roll som institutet obehörig vinst spelar i svensk rätt idag.

Uppsatsen inleds med ett kapitel som ämnar förklara vad som egentligen avses med begreppet allmän princip. Granskning av doktrin har visat att principer antingen kan vara explicita eller grunda sig i generaliseringar som görs på grundval... (More)
Rättsprincipen obehörig vinst, eller vinstregeln som den också kallas, har jämfört med andra europeiska rättsordningar haft en marginell betydelse i Sverige. Även om principen under en lång period varit föremål för skarp kritik från rättevetenskapligt håll, så har den på senare tid fått förnyad aktualitet då den dykt upp i flertalet rättsfall. I uppsatsen görs därför en översyn av svensk lagstiftning, praxis och doktrin för att utreda vilken roll som institutet obehörig vinst spelar i svensk rätt idag.

Uppsatsen inleds med ett kapitel som ämnar förklara vad som egentligen avses med begreppet allmän princip. Granskning av doktrin har visat att principer antingen kan vara explicita eller grunda sig i generaliseringar som görs på grundval av analogier från rättsfall och lagstiftning.

Därefter beskrivs vinstregeln och dess rekvisit. Kortfattat brukar principen om obehörig vinst, eller vinstregeln, beskrivas enligt följande: om en person A har gjort en vinst på en person B:s bekostnad så ska denna vinst gå åter om den saknar rättsgrund. Traditionellt har det ansetts att vinstregeln utgörs av fyra rekvisit: det ska ha uppkommit en vinst, vinsten ska ha skett på någon annans bekostnad, vinsten ska sakna rättsgrund och det ska dessutom inte föreligga några omständigheter som utesluter regelns tillämpning. En undersökning av doktrin har emellertid visat att rekvisitet som föreskriver att en vinst ska ha skett på någon annans bekostnad är överflödigt och att vinstregeln i svensk rätt därmed endast förefaller ha tre rekvisit.

I svensk rätt finns ingen allmän bestämmelse som stadgar att ersättning ska utgå i de fall där någon har gjort en obehörig vinst. Däremot finns en rad lagstadganden inom flera olika rättsområden som bygger på principen obehörig vinst. Vidare har en genomgång av rättspraxis visat att principen i flera fall använts som grund för att utdöma ersättning då lagstöd saknats för att utdöma ersättning på annan grund.

Den största svårigheten i arbetet har varit att hitta något som är gemensamt för alla de situationer i vilka principen om obehörig vinst förekommer. De uppenbara likheterna är att det uppstått en vinst som i ett första skede godtagits av rättsväsendet. Omständigheter gör dock att vinsten i ett senare skede bedöms vara obehörig. En ytterligare gemensam nämnare är att den vinnande parten har betett sig på ett mer eller mindre ursäktligt vis vid uppnåendet av vinsten.

Mot bakgrund av den omfattning som obehörig vinst förekommer i lagstiftning och den förnyade aktualitet som principen har fått i praxis talar mycket för att obehörig vinst är ett institut som har ett berättigande i svensk rätt. (Less)
Abstract
Unjust enrichment has, compared to other European legal systems, played a marginal role in Sweden. The principle of unjust enrichment has for a long time been the subject of pungent criticism in the Swedish jurisprudence. However, its recent comeback in Swedish case law has given the principle renewed importance. This paper examines and analyses Swedish legislation, case law and doctrine in order to investigate the role unjust enrichment plays in the Swedish legal system of today.

The essay begins with a chapter explaining what the word principle actually means. A study of doctrine has shown that principles can be either explicit or based on generalizations made on the basis of analogies derived from legislation and case law.

The... (More)
Unjust enrichment has, compared to other European legal systems, played a marginal role in Sweden. The principle of unjust enrichment has for a long time been the subject of pungent criticism in the Swedish jurisprudence. However, its recent comeback in Swedish case law has given the principle renewed importance. This paper examines and analyses Swedish legislation, case law and doctrine in order to investigate the role unjust enrichment plays in the Swedish legal system of today.

The essay begins with a chapter explaining what the word principle actually means. A study of doctrine has shown that principles can be either explicit or based on generalizations made on the basis of analogies derived from legislation and case law.

The essay then turns to examine the concept of unjust enrichment as a positive legal rule. Briefly, the rule of unjust enrichment can be described as follows: if a person A, is unjustly enriched at the expense of another person B, an obligation to make restitution will arise. According to the traditional view in the Swedish discussion, an obligation to make restitution will arise if four elements are established. Namely that enrichment has occurred, that one party has suffered a loss as a result of the other party’s enrichment, that the enrichment in question is without legal ground and that there are no other remedies available to the claimant. However, the study of doctrine has shown that it is not necessary to demonstrate that one party has suffered a loss in order to establish unjust enrichment.

In Swedish law there is no independent legal institute of unjust enrichment, nor is there any general statutory provision on unjust enrichment. However, there are a number of provisions concerning unjust enrichment, which can be found in several different fields of law. Furthermore, a review of case law has shown that in some actions the Swedish Supreme Court has awarded compensation on the grounds of unjust enrichment without any support in statutory provisions.

It is difficult to find something that all situations, in which the principle of unjust enrichment occurs, have in common. The most obvious similarity is that an enrichment has occurred, which has initially been accepted by the judiciary. However, the circumstances leading to the enrichment have in a later stage been considered to be unjust. Another common feature is that the enriched party has behaved in a more or less acceptable way when achieving the enrichment.

Given the extent of the legislation in which unjust enrichment occurs and the application of the principle in recent case law, it can be claimed that the principle of unjust enrichment has been established as a part of the Swedish legal system. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Malmberg, Suzanne LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Unjust Enrichment in Swedish Law
course
JURM01 20102
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Förmögenhetsrätt, obehörig vinst
language
Swedish
id
1670065
date added to LUP
2010-09-24 09:57:01
date last changed
2010-09-24 09:57:01
@misc{1670065,
  abstract     = {Unjust enrichment has, compared to other European legal systems, played a marginal role in Sweden. The principle of unjust enrichment has for a long time been the subject of pungent criticism in the Swedish jurisprudence. However, its recent comeback in Swedish case law has given the principle renewed importance. This paper examines and analyses Swedish legislation, case law and doctrine in order to investigate the role unjust enrichment plays in the Swedish legal system of today.

The essay begins with a chapter explaining what the word principle actually means. A study of doctrine has shown that principles can be either explicit or based on generalizations made on the basis of analogies derived from legislation and case law. 

The essay then turns to examine the concept of unjust enrichment as a positive legal rule. Briefly, the rule of unjust enrichment can be described as follows: if a person A, is unjustly enriched at the expense of another person B, an obligation to make restitution will arise. According to the traditional view in the Swedish discussion, an obligation to make restitution will arise if four elements are established. Namely that enrichment has occurred, that one party has suffered a loss as a result of the other party’s enrichment, that the enrichment in question is without legal ground and that there are no other remedies available to the claimant. However, the study of doctrine has shown that it is not necessary to demonstrate that one party has suffered a loss in order to establish unjust enrichment. 

In Swedish law there is no independent legal institute of unjust enrichment, nor is there any general statutory provision on unjust enrichment. However, there are a number of provisions concerning unjust enrichment, which can be found in several different fields of law. Furthermore, a review of case law has shown that in some actions the Swedish Supreme Court has awarded compensation on the grounds of unjust enrichment without any support in statutory provisions. 

It is difficult to find something that all situations, in which the principle of unjust enrichment occurs, have in common. The most obvious similarity is that an enrichment has occurred, which has initially been accepted by the judiciary. However, the circumstances leading to the enrichment have in a later stage been considered to be unjust. Another common feature is that the enriched party has behaved in a more or less acceptable way when achieving the enrichment.

Given the extent of the legislation in which unjust enrichment occurs and the application of the principle in recent case law, it can be claimed that the principle of unjust enrichment has been established as a part of the Swedish legal system.},
  author       = {Malmberg, Suzanne},
  keyword      = {Förmögenhetsrätt,obehörig vinst},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Obehörig vinst i svensk rätt},
  year         = {2010},
}