Formkravet vid överlåtelse av fast egendom
(2014) LAGM01 20142Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Sammanfattning
Denna uppsats behandlar formkravet i svensk rätt, speciellt formkravet och avtalsbundenhet i samband med att fast egendom överlåts och parterna skriver under köpehandlingar vid olika tidpunkter.
Överlåtelse av fast egendom undantas från AvtL:s bestämmelser eftersom det är ett formalavtal som regleras lex specialis i 4:1 JB. Anledningen till att överlåtelse av fast egendom inte kunde vara ett formlöst avtal såsom många andra avtal var dels att lagstiftaren ansåg att det var frågan om ett stort köp, vilket menas att alla förhastade beslut och en eventuell förhastad försäljning borde förhindras. Sedan fanns det också ett intresse av att klargöra tydligt vilka ägarförhållande som förelåg och slutligen så skulle... (More) - Sammanfattning
Denna uppsats behandlar formkravet i svensk rätt, speciellt formkravet och avtalsbundenhet i samband med att fast egendom överlåts och parterna skriver under köpehandlingar vid olika tidpunkter.
Överlåtelse av fast egendom undantas från AvtL:s bestämmelser eftersom det är ett formalavtal som regleras lex specialis i 4:1 JB. Anledningen till att överlåtelse av fast egendom inte kunde vara ett formlöst avtal såsom många andra avtal var dels att lagstiftaren ansåg att det var frågan om ett stort köp, vilket menas att alla förhastade beslut och en eventuell förhastad försäljning borde förhindras. Sedan fanns det också ett intresse av att klargöra tydligt vilka ägarförhållande som förelåg och slutligen så skulle formalavtalen fungera som bevismedel mellan parterna. En överlåtelse av fast egendom som sker genom att parterna inte skriver under köpehandlingarna samtidigt var till viss del redan påtänkt när formkravet i 4:1 JB stadgades, dock slopades samtidighetskravet för underskrifterna under utarbetningen av bestämmelsen eftersom det inte stöttades av remissinstanserna. Bestämmelsen uppställer ett legalt formkrav och är tvingande till sin karaktär. Regeln i 4:1 JB förutsätter att vissa rekvisit är med i avtalet för att det skall anses vara ett giltigt formalavtal enligt JB. Avtalet måste vara skriftligt, köpehandling skall upprättas, köpehandlingen skall innehålla parternas undertecknande och såväl priset för den aktuella fastigheten som en överlåtelseförklaring. Givetvis måste även köpehandlingen även ta upp en uppgift om själva fastigheten också. Bestämmelsen är tydlig och koncis och kan vid första anblick verka uttömmande men så är alltså inte fallet.
Arbetet belyser de rättsfall som finns och prövar frågan om vilka krav som uppställs i samband med att en fast egendom överlåts genom att parterna undertecknar köpehandlingarna vid olika tidpunkter. Rättsystemet är överens om att det ska finnas krav utöver de som ställs upp i 4:1 JB men instanserna är inte helt eniga om vad det skall vara för krav och vilken prestation parterna måste vidta för att uppfylla kravet. Skälet till att domstolen anser att det bör finnas krav förutom de som återfinns i 4:1 JB är för att parterna inte skall kunna dra nytta av ovissheten gällande om avtalsbundenhet finns mellan dem. Instanserna sluter sig till att köpehandlingen skall utges eller delges av den sist undertecknade parten för att avtalsbundenhet skall uppstå för parterna. Handlingen måste således kommuniceras på något vis mellan parterna, antigen direkt till motparten eller till en för den sist undertecknade parten fristående person. Dessutom måste det framgå av parternas avtal eller av omständigheterna i övrigt att information om köpets fullbordande kan inhämtas hos denna person. Är en mäklare en sådan fristående person, är ett juridiskt ombud att anse som en sådan fristående juridisk person och anser rätten att en överförmyndare är en sådan fristående person enligt praxis?
4:1 JB som först verkat både tydlig och uttömmande i sin karaktär framstår plötsligt som otydlig. (Less) - Abstract
- Summary
This paper deals with the form requirement from the perspective of Swedish law, especially the form requirement, contractual rights and obligations in the situation when immovable property has been transferred and the parties have not concurrently signed the purchase documents.
Transfer of immovable property is an exception from AVTL's rules because it is a special contract managed by lex specialis in 4: 1 JB. The reason for the transfer of immovable property cannot be a formless contract, as many other agreements, is because the legislature considered it a concern of a large purchase, thus any hasty decision and a possible hasty sale should be prevented. There was also an interest in clarifying the existing ownership and... (More) - Summary
This paper deals with the form requirement from the perspective of Swedish law, especially the form requirement, contractual rights and obligations in the situation when immovable property has been transferred and the parties have not concurrently signed the purchase documents.
Transfer of immovable property is an exception from AVTL's rules because it is a special contract managed by lex specialis in 4: 1 JB. The reason for the transfer of immovable property cannot be a formless contract, as many other agreements, is because the legislature considered it a concern of a large purchase, thus any hasty decision and a possible hasty sale should be prevented. There was also an interest in clarifying the existing ownership and ultimately would the special contract serve as evidence between the parties. A transfer of immovable property when the parties do not concurrently sign the purchase documents was to some extent already predicted when the form requirement of 4: 1 JB was established, but the concurrency requirement for the signatures was abolished during the drafting of the provision because it was not supported by the consultation bodies. The provision imposes a legal procedural requirement and by nature, it is mandatory. Rule 4: 1 JB requires that certain conditions to be included in the agreement for it to be considered a valid special contract according to JB. The agreement must be in writing, proof of purchase must be drawn, purchase document must contain the signature of the parties and both the price of the property and an assignment statement. Naturally, the purchase documents also need to encompass a ”description” of the property. The provision is clear and concise and may at first glance seem exhaustive, but this is however not the case.
The work highlights the legal cases that are available and examines the question of the requirements imposed in connection with a property transfer where the parties sign the purchase documents at different times. The justice system agree that there should be requirements in addition to those established in the 4: 1 JB but the court of law are not fully agreed over the requirements and the effort which the parties need to fulfil in order to achieve those requirements. The reason that the court considers that there should be requirements in addition to those established in the 4: 1 JB is that the parties will not be able to take advantage of the uncertainty regarding contractual rights and obligations between them. The court of law concludes that the purchase document is to be issued by the last signee for contractual rights and obligations to be established between the parties. The purchase document must therefore be communicated in some mean between the parties, either directly to the other party or to the last independent signee. Furthermore, it must appear from the parties' agreement or other circumstances that information about the completion of the purchase can be requested from this person. Is a broker such an independent person, is a lawyer in a state of such legal independency and does the Court considers that a guardian is such an independent person according to practice?
4: 1 JB which initially seems both clear and comprehensive, suddenly appears foggy and uncertain. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4905225
- author
- Swenson, Daniella LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Form requirement for the transfer of immovable property
- course
- LAGM01 20142
- year
- 2014
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- avtalsrätt, fastighetsrätt.
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4905225
- date added to LUP
- 2015-04-21 14:36:38
- date last changed
- 2015-04-21 14:36:38
@misc{4905225, abstract = {{Summary This paper deals with the form requirement from the perspective of Swedish law, especially the form requirement, contractual rights and obligations in the situation when immovable property has been transferred and the parties have not concurrently signed the purchase documents. Transfer of immovable property is an exception from AVTL's rules because it is a special contract managed by lex specialis in 4: 1 JB. The reason for the transfer of immovable property cannot be a formless contract, as many other agreements, is because the legislature considered it a concern of a large purchase, thus any hasty decision and a possible hasty sale should be prevented. There was also an interest in clarifying the existing ownership and ultimately would the special contract serve as evidence between the parties. A transfer of immovable property when the parties do not concurrently sign the purchase documents was to some extent already predicted when the form requirement of 4: 1 JB was established, but the concurrency requirement for the signatures was abolished during the drafting of the provision because it was not supported by the consultation bodies. The provision imposes a legal procedural requirement and by nature, it is mandatory. Rule 4: 1 JB requires that certain conditions to be included in the agreement for it to be considered a valid special contract according to JB. The agreement must be in writing, proof of purchase must be drawn, purchase document must contain the signature of the parties and both the price of the property and an assignment statement. Naturally, the purchase documents also need to encompass a ”description” of the property. The provision is clear and concise and may at first glance seem exhaustive, but this is however not the case. The work highlights the legal cases that are available and examines the question of the requirements imposed in connection with a property transfer where the parties sign the purchase documents at different times. The justice system agree that there should be requirements in addition to those established in the 4: 1 JB but the court of law are not fully agreed over the requirements and the effort which the parties need to fulfil in order to achieve those requirements. The reason that the court considers that there should be requirements in addition to those established in the 4: 1 JB is that the parties will not be able to take advantage of the uncertainty regarding contractual rights and obligations between them. The court of law concludes that the purchase document is to be issued by the last signee for contractual rights and obligations to be established between the parties. The purchase document must therefore be communicated in some mean between the parties, either directly to the other party or to the last independent signee. Furthermore, it must appear from the parties' agreement or other circumstances that information about the completion of the purchase can be requested from this person. Is a broker such an independent person, is a lawyer in a state of such legal independency and does the Court considers that a guardian is such an independent person according to practice? 4: 1 JB which initially seems both clear and comprehensive, suddenly appears foggy and uncertain.}}, author = {{Swenson, Daniella}}, language = {{swe}}, note = {{Student Paper}}, title = {{Formkravet vid överlåtelse av fast egendom}}, year = {{2014}}, }