Går det att ta sig ur? En analys av automatiska förlängningar av avtal mellan näringsidkare och konsument
(2014) JURM02 20141Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Automatiska förlängningar av avtal innebär att en ny bindningstid inträder om konsumenten inte senast vid viss tidpunkt säger upp avtalet. Att konsumentens passivitet är den omständighet som gör att den nya avtalstiden inträder, har bland annat gjort att sådana förlängningar jämförts med negativ avtalsbindning, vilket svensk rättsordning inte accepterar. Situationen är emellertid annorlunda när parterna från början har avtalat om att avtalet ska förlängas automatiskt. Marknadsdomstolen har också uttalat i MD 2009:30 att avtalsvillkor om automatisk förlängning av avtal inte utgör negativ avtalsbindning i egentlig avtalsrättslig mening.
Avtalsvillkor om automatiska förlängningar har ändå bedömts vara oskäliga i avtal mellan näringsidkare... (More) - Automatiska förlängningar av avtal innebär att en ny bindningstid inträder om konsumenten inte senast vid viss tidpunkt säger upp avtalet. Att konsumentens passivitet är den omständighet som gör att den nya avtalstiden inträder, har bland annat gjort att sådana förlängningar jämförts med negativ avtalsbindning, vilket svensk rättsordning inte accepterar. Situationen är emellertid annorlunda när parterna från början har avtalat om att avtalet ska förlängas automatiskt. Marknadsdomstolen har också uttalat i MD 2009:30 att avtalsvillkor om automatisk förlängning av avtal inte utgör negativ avtalsbindning i egentlig avtalsrättslig mening.
Avtalsvillkor om automatiska förlängningar har ändå bedömts vara oskäliga i avtal mellan näringsidkare och konsument i ett flertal fall, så väl civilrättsligt som marknadsrättsligt. I bedömningarna har ett krav på att näringsidkaren ska påminna konsumenten om uppsägning uppställts. Påminnelsen ska ske i rimlig tid och i lämplig form innan förlängningen inträder.
I en promemoria, App to date, har ett förslag till lagstiftning lagts fram för att reglera förevarande automatiska förlängningar. Även detta förslag innehåller ett påminnelsekrav, samt en ytterligare möjlighet för konsumenten att komma ifrån en automatisk förlängning då någon påminnelse inte erhållits.
Frågor som framträder är hur den svenska rättsordningen ser på avtalsvillkor om automatisk förlängning i avtal mellan näringsidkare och konsument, vilka omständigheter som är av betydelse vid en oskälighetsbedömning och varför. Andra frågor som uppkommer är om kravet på påminnelse och en kontroll genom praxis är en bra lösning eller om det behövs speciallagstiftning, kanske så som den i App to date, för att kontrollera villkor om automatisk förlängning.
Slutsatsen blir att ett avtalsvillkor om automatisk förlängning av avtal mellan näringsidkare och konsument är oskäligt när villkoret stadgar att automatisk förlängning inträder för det fall konsumenten inte säger upp avtalet senast 30 dagar innan den ursprungliga avtalsperioden löpt ut, avtalet har löpt under en så lång tid som ett år, förlängningen görs med ett år, då förlängningen inte innebär några beaktansvärda fördelar för konsumenten (inte i konsumentens intresse), och konsumenten inte har påmints i rimlig tid och lämplig form om att uppsägning ska ske och om konsekvenserna av en utebliven sådan.
Bedömningen enligt 36 § avtalslagen är som oftast i hög grad beroende av de särskilda omständigheterna i det enskilda fallet. Om Högsta domstolen inte tydligare uttalar sig om hur de olika omständigheterna värderas är det svårt att dra några användbara principiella slutsatser av domstolens domar. I brist på sådan vägledning kan speciallagstiftning av förutsebarhetsskäl vara önskvärd. (Less) - Abstract
- Automatic extension of contracts means that time-limited contracts are automatically extended unless the consumer terminates the contract a certain amount of time before it is to expire. The fact that the consumer’s inactivity is the reason why the contract is being extended has even led to a comparison between such automatic extensions and an illegal form of contracting called negative contract binding.
However, the situation is different when the parties already have concluded a contract that sets out what will happen when the fixed duration expires. The Market Court has also found, in MD 2009:30, that automatic extensions of contracts are not in fact negative contract binding in a strict contract law sense.
Contract terms stating an... (More) - Automatic extension of contracts means that time-limited contracts are automatically extended unless the consumer terminates the contract a certain amount of time before it is to expire. The fact that the consumer’s inactivity is the reason why the contract is being extended has even led to a comparison between such automatic extensions and an illegal form of contracting called negative contract binding.
However, the situation is different when the parties already have concluded a contract that sets out what will happen when the fixed duration expires. The Market Court has also found, in MD 2009:30, that automatic extensions of contracts are not in fact negative contract binding in a strict contract law sense.
Contract terms stating an automatic extension have yet been deemed unfair in consumer contracts in a number of cases, both in The Civil Courts and in The Market Court. The Courts have also stated that the trader has a duty to inform the consumer, in a reasonable time and in an appropriate form, before the extension occurs, that an automatic extension is due to take place.
In the Inquiry, App to date, legislation has been proposed in order to control the present automatic extensions. The legislation states that the trader shall inform the consumer in writing that an extension is due to take place. If such information is not provided to the consumer, he/she has the right to terminate the contract.
The issues that emerge in response to this, is if the Swedish legal system view such contract terms, stating an automatic extension, as unfair contract terms. And if they do so, what circumstances are of importance for the assessment and why. Other issues that emerge are if it is better to control such contract terms with general provisions prohibiting unfair contract terms, or if special legislation is needed.
The conclusion is that a contract term stating an automatic extension of the contract, when the contract is concluded between a consumer and a trader, is unfair when the contract term states that the automatic extension occurs if the consumer does not terminate the agreement at least 30 days before the original contract periods’ end, the contract has proceeded for one year, the extension is done for at least another year, the extension does not bring any significant benefits to the consumer (not in the interest of the consumer ), and the consumer has not been reminded in a reasonable time and appropriate form that termination shall occur and the consequences of it not being terminated.
The assessments are usually heavily dependent on the specific circumstances of the individual case. If the Supreme Court does not clearly rule on how the various circumstances of importance of the cases are measured, it is difficult to draw any useful conclusions of the judges. In the absence of such guidance, special legislation is needed out of foreseeability reasons. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4360868
- author
- Backman, Linda LU
- supervisor
-
- Ola Svensson LU
- organization
- alternative title
- Is it possible to get out? An analysis of automatic extensions of contracts between traders and consumers
- course
- JURM02 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Förmögenhetsrätt, avtalsrätt, konsumenträtt, marknadsrätt, oskäliga avtalsvillkor, automatiska förlängningar
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4360868
- date added to LUP
- 2014-04-16 07:01:57
- date last changed
- 2014-04-16 07:01:57
@misc{4360868,
abstract = {{Automatic extension of contracts means that time-limited contracts are automatically extended unless the consumer terminates the contract a certain amount of time before it is to expire. The fact that the consumer’s inactivity is the reason why the contract is being extended has even led to a comparison between such automatic extensions and an illegal form of contracting called negative contract binding.
However, the situation is different when the parties already have concluded a contract that sets out what will happen when the fixed duration expires. The Market Court has also found, in MD 2009:30, that automatic extensions of contracts are not in fact negative contract binding in a strict contract law sense.
Contract terms stating an automatic extension have yet been deemed unfair in consumer contracts in a number of cases, both in The Civil Courts and in The Market Court. The Courts have also stated that the trader has a duty to inform the consumer, in a reasonable time and in an appropriate form, before the extension occurs, that an automatic extension is due to take place.
In the Inquiry, App to date, legislation has been proposed in order to control the present automatic extensions. The legislation states that the trader shall inform the consumer in writing that an extension is due to take place. If such information is not provided to the consumer, he/she has the right to terminate the contract.
The issues that emerge in response to this, is if the Swedish legal system view such contract terms, stating an automatic extension, as unfair contract terms. And if they do so, what circumstances are of importance for the assessment and why. Other issues that emerge are if it is better to control such contract terms with general provisions prohibiting unfair contract terms, or if special legislation is needed.
The conclusion is that a contract term stating an automatic extension of the contract, when the contract is concluded between a consumer and a trader, is unfair when the contract term states that the automatic extension occurs if the consumer does not terminate the agreement at least 30 days before the original contract periods’ end, the contract has proceeded for one year, the extension is done for at least another year, the extension does not bring any significant benefits to the consumer (not in the interest of the consumer ), and the consumer has not been reminded in a reasonable time and appropriate form that termination shall occur and the consequences of it not being terminated.
The assessments are usually heavily dependent on the specific circumstances of the individual case. If the Supreme Court does not clearly rule on how the various circumstances of importance of the cases are measured, it is difficult to draw any useful conclusions of the judges. In the absence of such guidance, special legislation is needed out of foreseeability reasons.}},
author = {{Backman, Linda}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Går det att ta sig ur? En analys av automatiska förlängningar av avtal mellan näringsidkare och konsument}},
year = {{2014}},
}