Advanced

Näringsidkares ansvar för kvarglömd egendom

Mellgren, Åsa LU (2015) JUR092 20151
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med uppsatsen var att undersöka skadeståndsansvaret för sakskada på lös egendom som glömts kvar eller tappats i en näringsidkares affärslokaler av en person som har eller har haft ett avtal med näringsidkaren för att utnyttja hans tjänster. För att kunna uppfylla det övergripande syftet med uppsatsen utgick jag från följande frågeställningar:

- Under vilka förutsättningar kan en näringsidkare bli skyldig att ta hand om egendom som glömts kvar, tappats bort eller på annat sätt förlagts i dennes lokaler?

- För den händelse att det föreligger en skyldighet att omhänderta egendomen, vad omfattar då denna skyldighet?

- Kan näringsidkaren bli ersättningsskyldig gentemot konsumenten om denne åsidosätter en eventuell skyldighet... (More)
Syftet med uppsatsen var att undersöka skadeståndsansvaret för sakskada på lös egendom som glömts kvar eller tappats i en näringsidkares affärslokaler av en person som har eller har haft ett avtal med näringsidkaren för att utnyttja hans tjänster. För att kunna uppfylla det övergripande syftet med uppsatsen utgick jag från följande frågeställningar:

- Under vilka förutsättningar kan en näringsidkare bli skyldig att ta hand om egendom som glömts kvar, tappats bort eller på annat sätt förlagts i dennes lokaler?

- För den händelse att det föreligger en skyldighet att omhänderta egendomen, vad omfattar då denna skyldighet?

- Kan näringsidkaren bli ersättningsskyldig gentemot konsumenten om denne åsidosätter en eventuell skyldighet att ta hand om egendomen och om så är fallet under vilka förutsättningar?

- Om det är finns en skadeståndsgrundande förpliktelse att omhänderta egendomen, är det i sådana fall möjligt för näringsidkaren att friskriva sig från ansvar?

Med sak eller egendom avses lösöre eller flyttbara saker, och inte det vidare begreppet lös egendom som förutom lösöre även omfattar rättigheter och fordringar.

Min slutsats är att näringsidkare i en sådan situation som beskrivs ovan har en skyldighet att ta hand om sin medkontrahents egendom om den har hamnat i hans besittning, antingen baserat på reglerna i hittegodslagen 6 § om kvarglömd egendom och där ansvaret gentemot ägaren för skada på egendomen baseras på utomobligatoriska bestämmelser, eller i enlighet med de allmänna rättsprinciper rörande förvaring och tjänst som har kommit till utryck i konsumenttjänstlagens 32 §. (Less)
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to investigate the liability for property damage which has been inflicted on personal property belonging to a private person which is left behind or has gotten lost in premises belonging to a businessman, when the owner has or has had a contract with the businessman concerning his services. In order to meet the overall objective of this paper, I formulated the following questions:

- When, and under what conditions, can a businessman be obliged to take care of the private property that is left, lost or otherwise mislaid in his premises?

- In the event that there is an obligation on the businessman’s part to take care of the property, what does that obligation encompass?

- Can the businessman be held liable... (More)
The aim of this thesis is to investigate the liability for property damage which has been inflicted on personal property belonging to a private person which is left behind or has gotten lost in premises belonging to a businessman, when the owner has or has had a contract with the businessman concerning his services. In order to meet the overall objective of this paper, I formulated the following questions:

- When, and under what conditions, can a businessman be obliged to take care of the private property that is left, lost or otherwise mislaid in his premises?

- In the event that there is an obligation on the businessman’s part to take care of the property, what does that obligation encompass?

- Can the businessman be held liable if he doesn’t fulfill any such obligation to take care of the property and, if so, under what conditions?

- If there is a tort obligation to take care of the property, can the businessman be allowed to exonerate himself from responsibility?

By private property I mean chattels or movable things, and not the broader concept of personal property that includes rights and claims.

My conclusion is that a businessman that finds himself in a situation like the one above does have an obligation to take care of his business partner’s private property if it has ended up in his possession, either because of the law concerning lost property and where his obligation towards his partner is based on non-contractual rules, or in accordance with the general legal principles concerning services which has been codified in the law of customer service. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Mellgren, Åsa LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Business men's obligations concerning private property left behind on their premises
course
JUR092 20151
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skadestånd, konsumenträtt, avtalsrätt
language
Swedish
id
7370295
date added to LUP
2015-06-22 13:12:07
date last changed
2015-06-22 13:12:07
@misc{7370295,
  abstract     = {The aim of this thesis is to investigate the liability for property damage which has been inflicted on personal property belonging to a private person which is left behind or has gotten lost in premises belonging to a businessman, when the owner has or has had a contract with the businessman concerning his services. In order to meet the overall objective of this paper, I formulated the following questions:

- When, and under what conditions, can a businessman be obliged to take care of the private property that is left, lost or otherwise mislaid in his premises?

- In the event that there is an obligation on the businessman’s part to take care of the property, what does that obligation encompass?

- Can the businessman be held liable if he doesn’t fulfill any such obligation to take care of the property and, if so, under what conditions?

- If there is a tort obligation to take care of the property, can the businessman be allowed to exonerate himself from responsibility?

By private property I mean chattels or movable things, and not the broader concept of personal property that includes rights and claims.

My conclusion is that a businessman that finds himself in a situation like the one above does have an obligation to take care of his business partner’s private property if it has ended up in his possession, either because of the law concerning lost property and where his obligation towards his partner is based on non-contractual rules, or in accordance with the general legal principles concerning services which has been codified in the law of customer service.},
  author       = {Mellgren, Åsa},
  keyword      = {skadestånd,konsumenträtt,avtalsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Näringsidkares ansvar för kvarglömd egendom},
  year         = {2015},
}