Advanced

Hävning enligt AB 04 och ABT 06

Magnusson, David LU (2011) JURM01 20102
Department of Law
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to clarify the grounds for termination, and the legal consequences of termination, according to the standard agreement system constituted by AB 04 and ABT 06. The study is based on such theory and method which represents traditional jurisprudence. In Sweden commercial construction contracts are not subject to any specific legislative regulation. For lack of formally applicable legislation the standard agreements has in literature been considered to be of great importance for the contract type in general. The construction contracts law is also characterized by its lack of established practice from general courts, and profound doctrine. Therefore this study seeks its answers also in general principles for the law... (More)
The purpose of this study is to clarify the grounds for termination, and the legal consequences of termination, according to the standard agreement system constituted by AB 04 and ABT 06. The study is based on such theory and method which represents traditional jurisprudence. In Sweden commercial construction contracts are not subject to any specific legislative regulation. For lack of formally applicable legislation the standard agreements has in literature been considered to be of great importance for the contract type in general. The construction contracts law is also characterized by its lack of established practice from general courts, and profound doctrine. Therefore this study seeks its answers also in general principles for the law of contracts, as they are expressed in the Consumer Services Act and the Sale of Goods Act.

The study shows that termination is no uniform concept in Swedish law of contracts. However, it is a general principle that all fundamental breaches of contracts are causes for termination. The most significant consequence of termination is that the debtor no longer has the right, or the obligation, to fulfill the contract in natura. Furthermore, any performance of the contract should be reversed. Both AB 04 and ABT 06 contains a list of specific grounds for termination, but has no clause that enables the creditor to terminate in case of fundamental breaches of the contract in general. Some of the stated grounds for termination must not be fundamental breaches of contract, according to the words of the standard agreements. The agreements also state that the contract may only be terminated as regards remaining works.

The conclusion of this study is that the grounds for termination in the standard agreements must be interpreted in the light of the general principles of the law of contracts. This means that the lists of grounds for termination in AB 04 and ABT 06 are not complete. However, the right to terminate on the listed grounds could be somewhat restricted in comparison to the general principles for the law of contracts.

Regarding the consequences of termination, the conclusion is that the contract in its entirety is still applicable for the performed works after termination. At termination the contractor must be paid for the performed works in proportion to the contracted price for the works in their entirety. The value of the partly completed works for the employer has no importance in this regard. Certain questions about what clauses should be applicable for defects, delays and damages after termination follows the fact that the works may be divided into one terminated part, and one performed part. These matters could be settled either by the general provisions of the 5th chapter, or the special provisions for termination of the 8th chapter of AB 04 and ABT 06. The study concludes that chapter 8 could only be applicable for damages and delays which are adequately caused by the termination itself. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med denna uppsats är att precisera hävningsgrunderna och hävningens rättsverkningar enligt standardavtalen AB 04 och ABT 06. För att kunna besvara de ställda frågorna utgår arbetet från sådan rättsdogmatisk teori och metod som kan sägas utgöra traditionell rättsvetenskap. För kommersiella entreprenadavtal saknas direkt tillämpliga obligationsrättsliga lagregler. Detta innebär att de förhandlade standardavtal som finns på området har kommit att få en stor betydelse. Den entreprenadrättsliga litteraturen är nästan uteslutande av handbokskaraktär, och behandlar hävningsproblemen mycket styvmoderligt. Området präglas också av brist på rikhaltig praxis från allmänna domstolar. Denna uppsats söker därför dispositiva regler och... (More)
Syftet med denna uppsats är att precisera hävningsgrunderna och hävningens rättsverkningar enligt standardavtalen AB 04 och ABT 06. För att kunna besvara de ställda frågorna utgår arbetet från sådan rättsdogmatisk teori och metod som kan sägas utgöra traditionell rättsvetenskap. För kommersiella entreprenadavtal saknas direkt tillämpliga obligationsrättsliga lagregler. Detta innebär att de förhandlade standardavtal som finns på området har kommit att få en stor betydelse. Den entreprenadrättsliga litteraturen är nästan uteslutande av handbokskaraktär, och behandlar hävningsproblemen mycket styvmoderligt. Området präglas också av brist på rikhaltig praxis från allmänna domstolar. Denna uppsats söker därför dispositiva regler och tolkningsbakgrund huvudsakligen genom analogier med köprätten och konsumenttjänsträtten.

Undersökningen visar att det inte finns något tydligt avgränsat och enhetligt hävningsbegrepp inom obligationsrätten. Som allmän princip gäller dock att ett kontraktsbrott ska vara väsentligt för att grunda hävningsrätt. Den mest karaktäristiska hävningspåföljden är inhibition och återgång av naturafullgörelse. AB 04 och ABT 06 innehåller en uppräkning av hävningsgrunder, men saknar en generell regel som ger hävningsrätt vid varje väsentligt avtalsbrott. Vidare saknas uttryckligt krav på väsentlighet för vissa typer av uppräknade hävningsrättsgrundande kontraktsbrott. AB 04 och ABT 06 stadgar att kontraktet endast får hävas med avseende på återstående arbeten. Detta innebär att avtalet är bestående i fråga om redan utfört arbete.

Uppsatsens slutsatser är att standardavtalens hävningsgrunder måste tolkas mot bakgrund av allmänna obligationsrättsliga principer. Detta innebär att avtalens uppräkning av hävningsgrunder inte är uttömmande. I fråga om sådana typer av kontraktsbrott som uppräknats kan hävningsrätten dock vara mer inskränkt än vad som medges enligt allmänna principer. När det gäller hävningens rättsföljder är slutsatsen att avtalet fortsätter att gälla för utförd del av entreprenaden. Vid hävningen ska entreprenören gottskrivas värdet av denna del i förhållande till kontraktssumman som pris för hela entreprenaden. Beställarens eventuella nytta av en halvfärdig entreprenad saknar därför betydelse i detta sammanhang. Att entreprenaden kan uppdelas i en hävd och en utförd del leder till gränsdragningsfrågor mellan de allmänna reglerna om skadestånd på grund av fel och försening, samt specialreglerna för värdering och skadestånd vid hävning. Gränsdragningen får i regel ske genom en analys av adekvata orsakssamband mellan själva hävningen och skadan. En sammanfattande slutsats är att hävning enligt AB 04 och ABT 06 snarare är att uppfatta som en uppsägning för framtiden. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Magnusson, David LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Termination according to AB 04 and ABT 06
course
JURM01 20102
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Entreprenadrätt, AB 04, ABT 06, hävning, häva
language
Swedish
id
1852789
date added to LUP
2011-03-16 11:51:40
date last changed
2011-04-01 04:49:51
@misc{1852789,
  abstract     = {The purpose of this study is to clarify the grounds for termination, and the legal consequences of termination, according to the standard agreement system constituted by AB 04 and ABT 06. The study is based on such theory and method which represents traditional jurisprudence. In Sweden commercial construction contracts are not subject to any specific legislative regulation. For lack of formally applicable legislation the standard agreements has in literature been considered to be of great importance for the contract type in general. The construction contracts law is also characterized by its lack of established practice from general courts, and profound doctrine. Therefore this study seeks its answers also in general principles for the law of contracts, as they are expressed in the Consumer Services Act and the Sale of Goods Act.

The study shows that termination is no uniform concept in Swedish law of contracts. However, it is a general principle that all fundamental breaches of contracts are causes for termination. The most significant consequence of termination is that the debtor no longer has the right, or the obligation, to fulfill the contract in natura. Furthermore, any performance of the contract should be reversed. Both AB 04 and ABT 06 contains a list of specific grounds for termination, but has no clause that enables the creditor to terminate in case of fundamental breaches of the contract in general. Some of the stated grounds for termination must not be fundamental breaches of contract, according to the words of the standard agreements. The agreements also state that the contract may only be terminated as regards remaining works.

The conclusion of this study is that the grounds for termination in the standard agreements must be interpreted in the light of the general principles of the law of contracts. This means that the lists of grounds for termination in AB 04 and ABT 06 are not complete. However, the right to terminate on the listed grounds could be somewhat restricted in comparison to the general principles for the law of contracts.

Regarding the consequences of termination, the conclusion is that the contract in its entirety is still applicable for the performed works after termination. At termination the contractor must be paid for the performed works in proportion to the contracted price for the works in their entirety. The value of the partly completed works for the employer has no importance in this regard. Certain questions about what clauses should be applicable for defects, delays and damages after termination follows the fact that the works may be divided into one terminated part, and one performed part. These matters could be settled either by the general provisions of the 5th chapter, or the special provisions for termination of the 8th chapter of AB 04 and ABT 06. The study concludes that chapter 8 could only be applicable for damages and delays which are adequately caused by the termination itself.},
  author       = {Magnusson, David},
  keyword      = {Entreprenadrätt,AB 04,ABT 06,hävning,häva},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Hävning enligt AB 04 och ABT 06},
  year         = {2011},
}