Condictio indebiti - En kritisk analys av Högsta Domstolens behandling av misstagsbetalningar
(2013) LAGF03 20131Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I svensk rätt har den som erlagt betalning av misstag som huvudregel, enligt principen om condictio indebiti, rätt att få pengarna åter. Huvudregeln motiveras av det faktum att mottagaren inte har någon rätt till de erhållna medlen och därmed inte heller något beaktansvärt intresse av att få behålla dem. Det finns emellertid fall då omständigheterna vid betalningen och händelseförloppet därefter ger vid handen att återbetalningsskyldighet inte skäligen bör åläggas mottagaren. Så kan vara fallet då betalningen mottagits i god tro, och mottagaren därefter hunnit antingen spendera pengarna, eller på annat sätt inrätta sin ekonomi efter betalningen, alltjämt i god tro. Vid bedömningen av vilket av parternas intressen som bör ges företräde är... (More)
- I svensk rätt har den som erlagt betalning av misstag som huvudregel, enligt principen om condictio indebiti, rätt att få pengarna åter. Huvudregeln motiveras av det faktum att mottagaren inte har någon rätt till de erhållna medlen och därmed inte heller något beaktansvärt intresse av att få behålla dem. Det finns emellertid fall då omständigheterna vid betalningen och händelseförloppet därefter ger vid handen att återbetalningsskyldighet inte skäligen bör åläggas mottagaren. Så kan vara fallet då betalningen mottagits i god tro, och mottagaren därefter hunnit antingen spendera pengarna, eller på annat sätt inrätta sin ekonomi efter betalningen, alltjämt i god tro. Vid bedömningen av vilket av parternas intressen som bör ges företräde är även andra faktorer av betydelse, t.ex. hänsyn till tryggheten i den allmänna omsättningen, mottagarens ekonomiska kapacitet, parternas eventuella culpa, samt den tid efter betalningen under vilken betalaren förhållit sig passiv. Även partskonstellationen spelar en betydande roll: det säger sig själv att en misstagsbetalning till en konsument aktualiserar andra hänsyn än en misstagsbetalning till en statlig myndighet.
Denna uppsats bygger på en analys av fem nyare rättsfall från Högsta Domstolens praxis och syftar till att utreda huruvida principen om condictio indebiti tillämpas på ett konsekvent och ändamålsenligt sätt. Domstolens ställningstaganden granskas mot bakgrund av de hänsyn som, i doktrin och tidigare rättspraxis, har ansetts motivera regleringens utformning. Undersökningen visar att HD i några fall har valt att, utan närmare motivering, utelämna det traditionellt väletablerade inrättanderekvisitet från sin bedömning. HD:s rättspolitiska strävanden har i några av de behandlade rättsfallen genomdrivits på ett sätt som står i strid med de underliggande hänsyn som condictio indebiti-principen bygger på, vilket har lett till orättvisa resultat. (Less) - Abstract
- In Swedish law, the principle of condictio indebiti provides, as a general rule, that anyone who makes a payment by mistake shall have the right to get his or her money back. The general rule is motivated by the fact that the recipient of the payment is in no way entitled to the funds, and therefore has no considerable interest in keeping them. There are, however, situations where the chain of events, both preceding and following the payment, leads to the conclusion that the recipient shall be free from any claims of repayment. One such situation is when the money is received in good faith, and the recipient, still unaware of the mistake, has either spent the money, or in any other way adapted his or her economy as a result of the payment.... (More)
- In Swedish law, the principle of condictio indebiti provides, as a general rule, that anyone who makes a payment by mistake shall have the right to get his or her money back. The general rule is motivated by the fact that the recipient of the payment is in no way entitled to the funds, and therefore has no considerable interest in keeping them. There are, however, situations where the chain of events, both preceding and following the payment, leads to the conclusion that the recipient shall be free from any claims of repayment. One such situation is when the money is received in good faith, and the recipient, still unaware of the mistake, has either spent the money, or in any other way adapted his or her economy as a result of the payment. When deciding which one of the parties has the most considerable interest, other factors of relevance are e.g. the interest of stability in the general economic system, the economical capacity of the recipient, whether any of the parties have been negligent, and finally, the time it took for the transferor to notify the recipient of the mistake. Another factor of importance is the identity of the parties, as different considerations must be made in cases where the payment has been received by a consumer as opposed to when it has been received by a government agency.
This essay is based on an analysis of five more recent cases from the Supreme Court, and its purpose is to examine whether the principle of condictio indebiti is applied in a consistent and appropriate manner. The positions taken by the Court are scrutinized and compared to the positions taken in earlier practice, and those of the legal doctrine. The study concludes that the Supreme Court, in some cases, has chosen not to discuss the traditionally important, necessary condition of whether the recipient has adapted his or her economy as a result of the payment. The analysis also shows that the Supreme Court’s strive to enforce certain legal policy has, on some occasions, led it to disregard some of the basic values of the principle of condictio indebiti, which in turn has led to seemingly unfair results. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3800374
- author
- Ekelund, Hampus LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Condictio indebiti - A critical analysis of the Supreme Court's treatment of wrongful payments
- course
- LAGF03 20131
- year
- 2013
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- förmögenhetsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 3800374
- date added to LUP
- 2013-09-11 13:47:11
- date last changed
- 2013-09-11 13:47:11
@misc{3800374,
abstract = {{In Swedish law, the principle of condictio indebiti provides, as a general rule, that anyone who makes a payment by mistake shall have the right to get his or her money back. The general rule is motivated by the fact that the recipient of the payment is in no way entitled to the funds, and therefore has no considerable interest in keeping them. There are, however, situations where the chain of events, both preceding and following the payment, leads to the conclusion that the recipient shall be free from any claims of repayment. One such situation is when the money is received in good faith, and the recipient, still unaware of the mistake, has either spent the money, or in any other way adapted his or her economy as a result of the payment. When deciding which one of the parties has the most considerable interest, other factors of relevance are e.g. the interest of stability in the general economic system, the economical capacity of the recipient, whether any of the parties have been negligent, and finally, the time it took for the transferor to notify the recipient of the mistake. Another factor of importance is the identity of the parties, as different considerations must be made in cases where the payment has been received by a consumer as opposed to when it has been received by a government agency.
This essay is based on an analysis of five more recent cases from the Supreme Court, and its purpose is to examine whether the principle of condictio indebiti is applied in a consistent and appropriate manner. The positions taken by the Court are scrutinized and compared to the positions taken in earlier practice, and those of the legal doctrine. The study concludes that the Supreme Court, in some cases, has chosen not to discuss the traditionally important, necessary condition of whether the recipient has adapted his or her economy as a result of the payment. The analysis also shows that the Supreme Court’s strive to enforce certain legal policy has, on some occasions, led it to disregard some of the basic values of the principle of condictio indebiti, which in turn has led to seemingly unfair results.}},
author = {{Ekelund, Hampus}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Condictio indebiti - En kritisk analys av Högsta Domstolens behandling av misstagsbetalningar}},
year = {{2013}},
}