Bankers regressrätt vid självständiga bankgarantier - särskilt vid rättsmissbruk
(2011) JURM02 20112Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Uppsatsen undersöker bankens regressrätt gentemot uppdragsgivaren vid självständiga bankgarantier, och då särskilt vid sådana fall av beneficientens rättsmissbruk vid vilka banken inte är skyldig att betala beneficienten trots att garantivillkoren formellt är uppfyllda.
En beskrivning av bankens skyldigheter och kommentarer till detta görs. Frågorna huruvida banken bör ha någon form av väglednings- eller rådgivningsplikt vid framtagandet av garantin, och huruvida banken bör ha en plikt att meddela sin uppdragsgivare om beneficientens krav på utbetalning enligt garantin, uppmärksammas.
Det sägs att det rimligaste bör vara att anse att ett undantag från bankens betalningsskyldighet vid beneficientens uppenbara rättsmissbruk existerar i... (More) - Uppsatsen undersöker bankens regressrätt gentemot uppdragsgivaren vid självständiga bankgarantier, och då särskilt vid sådana fall av beneficientens rättsmissbruk vid vilka banken inte är skyldig att betala beneficienten trots att garantivillkoren formellt är uppfyllda.
En beskrivning av bankens skyldigheter och kommentarer till detta görs. Frågorna huruvida banken bör ha någon form av väglednings- eller rådgivningsplikt vid framtagandet av garantin, och huruvida banken bör ha en plikt att meddela sin uppdragsgivare om beneficientens krav på utbetalning enligt garantin, uppmärksammas.
Det sägs att det rimligaste bör vara att anse att ett undantag från bankens betalningsskyldighet vid beneficientens uppenbara rättsmissbruk existerar i svensk rätt.
Regressrättens förhållande till bankens skyldigheter behandlas. Det som fokuseras är regressrättens minskande eller bortfallande beroende på att banken inte iakttagit sina skyldigheter. Vidare sägs något om regressrättens omfattning och några anmärkningar om regressrätten vid en indirekt bankgaranti görs.
Avslutningsvis diskuteras uppsatsens särskilda frågeställning – huruvida bankens regressrätt bör bortfalla vid utbetalning trots beneficientens rättsmissbruk – varvid en vägning av argument för och emot detta utmynnar i uppfattningen att bankens regressrätt bör falla – även om motgarantin är ovillkorlig. Det oönskvärda att banken därmed tvingas ta ställning till om rättsmissbruk är bevisat uppmärksammas, varför en alternativ lösning lyfts fram där detta avgörande i stället görs av en domstol eller av något annat organ som parterna anförtrott avgörandet. (Less) - Abstract
- This thesis examines the bank’s right to reimbursement from the account party when issuing independent bank guarantees. Special focus is placed upon the bank’s right to reimbursement in relation to the fraud exception, where the bank has no obligation to pay the beneficiary in spite of the beneficiary’s demand’s compliance with the conditions set out in the guarantee.
The bank’s obligations are described and commented. The question whether the bank should have some kind of duty to advice the account party when he applies for the guarantee is considered, as is the question whether the bank has a duty to notify the account party about the beneficiary’s demand for payment under the guarantee.
It is contended in this thesis that the most... (More) - This thesis examines the bank’s right to reimbursement from the account party when issuing independent bank guarantees. Special focus is placed upon the bank’s right to reimbursement in relation to the fraud exception, where the bank has no obligation to pay the beneficiary in spite of the beneficiary’s demand’s compliance with the conditions set out in the guarantee.
The bank’s obligations are described and commented. The question whether the bank should have some kind of duty to advice the account party when he applies for the guarantee is considered, as is the question whether the bank has a duty to notify the account party about the beneficiary’s demand for payment under the guarantee.
It is contended in this thesis that the most reasonable point of view is that the fraud exception should exist in some form according to Swedish law.
The relation between the bank’s execution of its obligations and its right to reimbursement from the account party is examined. Further something is said about the extent of the bank’s right to reimbursement, and a few remarks are made about the bank’s right to reimbursement in cases of indirect guarantees.
In conclusion the question whether the bank should forfeit its right to reimbursement if payment is made under the guarantee, despite the beneficiary’s fraudulent demand, is discussed. After considering arguments for and against this, the view is taken that the bank should forfeit its right to reimbursement – even if the counter-indemnity is unconditional. Since this in turn will lead to an unfavourable scenario in which the bank is forced to decide whether fraud can be established, another solution is put forward where this legal consideration is made by a court or other body that the parties decided, instead. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/2292165
- author
- Ekman, Zackarias LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Banks' right to reimbursement when issuing independent bank guarantees - especially in cases of fraud
- course
- JURM02 20112
- year
- 2011
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- bankrätt, avtalsrätt, bankgarantier, regressrätt, rättsmissbruk
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 2292165
- date added to LUP
- 2012-02-16 13:45:25
- date last changed
- 2012-02-16 13:45:25
@misc{2292165,
abstract = {{This thesis examines the bank’s right to reimbursement from the account party when issuing independent bank guarantees. Special focus is placed upon the bank’s right to reimbursement in relation to the fraud exception, where the bank has no obligation to pay the beneficiary in spite of the beneficiary’s demand’s compliance with the conditions set out in the guarantee.
The bank’s obligations are described and commented. The question whether the bank should have some kind of duty to advice the account party when he applies for the guarantee is considered, as is the question whether the bank has a duty to notify the account party about the beneficiary’s demand for payment under the guarantee.
It is contended in this thesis that the most reasonable point of view is that the fraud exception should exist in some form according to Swedish law.
The relation between the bank’s execution of its obligations and its right to reimbursement from the account party is examined. Further something is said about the extent of the bank’s right to reimbursement, and a few remarks are made about the bank’s right to reimbursement in cases of indirect guarantees.
In conclusion the question whether the bank should forfeit its right to reimbursement if payment is made under the guarantee, despite the beneficiary’s fraudulent demand, is discussed. After considering arguments for and against this, the view is taken that the bank should forfeit its right to reimbursement – even if the counter-indemnity is unconditional. Since this in turn will lead to an unfavourable scenario in which the bank is forced to decide whether fraud can be established, another solution is put forward where this legal consideration is made by a court or other body that the parties decided, instead.}},
author = {{Ekman, Zackarias}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Bankers regressrätt vid självständiga bankgarantier - särskilt vid rättsmissbruk}},
year = {{2011}},
}