Godmansavgöranden – att avtala bort rätten till prövning
(2015) JURM01 20151Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Dispositionsprincipen inom avtalsrätten ger som huvudregel var och en rätt att fritt bestämma över avtalsfrågor så som om avtal ska ingås, vem avtalet ska ingås med och vad avtalet ska innehålla. Inom den rätten ligger även att avgöra hur en framtida tvist dem emellan ska lösas. Avtalsfriheten är dock inte absolut. Den begränsas av ett olika hänsynstaganden, skapade som skyddsregler för svaga parter eller grundläggande mänskliga rättigheter, eller till exempel med bakgrund i process – och samhällsekonomiska hänsynstaganden.
Att avtala om att annan än domstol ska avgöra en tvist kan i många fall ses, i vart fall partiellt, som ett avsteg från den övergripande rättigheten till rättvis rättegång. I lag har skiljenämnd intagits som ett... (More) - Dispositionsprincipen inom avtalsrätten ger som huvudregel var och en rätt att fritt bestämma över avtalsfrågor så som om avtal ska ingås, vem avtalet ska ingås med och vad avtalet ska innehålla. Inom den rätten ligger även att avgöra hur en framtida tvist dem emellan ska lösas. Avtalsfriheten är dock inte absolut. Den begränsas av ett olika hänsynstaganden, skapade som skyddsregler för svaga parter eller grundläggande mänskliga rättigheter, eller till exempel med bakgrund i process – och samhällsekonomiska hänsynstaganden.
Att avtala om att annan än domstol ska avgöra en tvist kan i många fall ses, i vart fall partiellt, som ett avsteg från den övergripande rättigheten till rättvis rättegång. I lag har skiljenämnd intagits som ett frivilligt alternativ till traditionell domstolsprövning men parter kan även välja att avtala om att använda andra konfliktlösningsmetoder som inte har intagits i den svenska lagstiftningen. Många problem som uppstår och kan uppstå då dessa lösningar sätts på prov är likartade bland alla tvistelösningsformer utanför de lagreglerade alternativen. I uppsatsen fokuseras på när slitandet av tvisten överlåts på en tredje man att avgöra på ett bindande sätt, i uppsatsen kallat godmansförfarande, som ett alternativ till främst traditionell domstolsprövning. Godmansförfarandet kan inte ha samma rättsliga betydelse som en lagakraftvunnen dom. Därför bör inte avgörandet heller kunna utgöra processhinder, varken som res judicata eller litis pendens och inte heller vara exigibelt. Dessa begränsningar kan tyckas naturliga då det till skillnad från domstolsförfarandet och skiljeförfarandet inte existerar några direkta lagregler som styr godmansförfarandet och garanterar rättssäkerheten för parterna. Godmansavgörandet kan istället endast vara civilrättsligt bindande. Det kan beskrivas som att avgörandet i stort har samma betydelse som del av parternas avtal.
Att godmansavgörandet inte innehar rättskraft eller exigibilitet ses oftast som en begränsning i godmansavgörandets betydelse för parterna. I praktiken kan dock detta vara en missledande inställning. Vid prövning i domstol är det mycket möjligt, särskilt i ett skiljeförfarande, att godmansavgörandet anses vara en giltig del av parternas avtal och att det därför läggs oförändrat som grund för en formell dom. För missnöjd part kan det visa sig vara mycket svårt att klandra ett godmansavgörande, kanske till och med svårare än att klandra en traditionell dom eller skiljedom på formella grunder. Å andra sidan kan det tänkas att avtalet om godmansavgörande ogiltigförklaras i sin helhet på grund av sin processuella natur, grundat på att sådana avtal är ogiltiga per se. Dessa frågor tillsammans med svårigheten med, om godmansavgörandet godtas som avtalsinnehåll, att i enlighet med avtalslagen hantera avtalsinnehåll som utformats av annan än parterna, riskerar göra tvistelösningen svårbedömd. (Less) - Abstract
- The principle of freedom of contract gives, as a rule, everyone the right to freely decide over contract issues such as, that agreements are to be concluded, whom the contract is to be concluded with, and what the contract should contain. Within the principle is also to determine how a future dispute between them will be resolved. Contractual freedom is not absolute. It is limited by a variety of considerations, created as safeguards for weak parties or basic human rights, or for example with a background in the process- and socio-economic considerations.
Agreements that someone other than the court of law shall decide a dispute can be seen, at least partially, as a waiver from the general right to a fair trial. In law civil arbitration... (More) - The principle of freedom of contract gives, as a rule, everyone the right to freely decide over contract issues such as, that agreements are to be concluded, whom the contract is to be concluded with, and what the contract should contain. Within the principle is also to determine how a future dispute between them will be resolved. Contractual freedom is not absolute. It is limited by a variety of considerations, created as safeguards for weak parties or basic human rights, or for example with a background in the process- and socio-economic considerations.
Agreements that someone other than the court of law shall decide a dispute can be seen, at least partially, as a waiver from the general right to a fair trial. In law civil arbitration has been added as a voluntary alternative to traditional court procedure but the parties may choose use other dispute resolution methods that have not been taken into Swedish legislation. Many problems that occur and may occur when these methods are tested are similar among all forms of alternative dispute resolution outside the ones regulated in law. The essay focuses on when the resolution of the dispute is transferred to a third party to decide for the parties in a binding way, in the essay called godmansavgöranden , as an alternative to traditional courts or arbitration. Godmansavgöranden cannot have the same legal meaning as a final judgement. Therefore, the decision should not constitute a procedural obstacle, either as res judicata or litis pendens nor be enforceable. These limitations may seem natural when, unlike court proceedings and arbitration, there does not exist any direct legal rules that govern the procedure of godmansavgöranden and guarantees fair trial for the parties. Godmansavgöranden can instead only be civilly binding. Basically the ruling can be described as having the same meaning as part of the agreement between the parties.
That the godmansavgörande does not hold legal validity is usually seen as a limitation in the significance of the resolution for the parties. In practice, however, this can be a misleading approach. Upon court proceedings, it is very possible, especially in an arbitration proceeding, that the godmansavgörande is considered to be a valid part of the agreement between the parties and is added unchanged as the basis for a final judgement. For a dissatisfied party it can prove to be very difficult to criticize a godmansavgörande, perhaps even more difficult than to criticize a traditional judgment of court or arbitration on formal grounds. On the other hand, it is conceivable that the agreement on godmansavgörande is annulled in its entirety because of its procedural nature, on the basis that such agreements are void. These issues, together with the difficulty to manage contractual content designed by others than the parties, risk making the dispute resolution by godmansavgörande difficult to assess. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/7456053
- author
- Everett, Alexander LU
- supervisor
-
- Ola Svensson LU
- organization
- alternative title
- Third party determination - contractual waiver of rights to fair trial
- course
- JURM01 20151
- year
- 2015
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Avtalsrätt Civilrättskipning Godmansavgöranden
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 7456053
- date added to LUP
- 2015-06-30 17:40:25
- date last changed
- 2015-06-30 17:40:25
@misc{7456053,
abstract = {{The principle of freedom of contract gives, as a rule, everyone the right to freely decide over contract issues such as, that agreements are to be concluded, whom the contract is to be concluded with, and what the contract should contain. Within the principle is also to determine how a future dispute between them will be resolved. Contractual freedom is not absolute. It is limited by a variety of considerations, created as safeguards for weak parties or basic human rights, or for example with a background in the process- and socio-economic considerations.
Agreements that someone other than the court of law shall decide a dispute can be seen, at least partially, as a waiver from the general right to a fair trial. In law civil arbitration has been added as a voluntary alternative to traditional court procedure but the parties may choose use other dispute resolution methods that have not been taken into Swedish legislation. Many problems that occur and may occur when these methods are tested are similar among all forms of alternative dispute resolution outside the ones regulated in law. The essay focuses on when the resolution of the dispute is transferred to a third party to decide for the parties in a binding way, in the essay called godmansavgöranden , as an alternative to traditional courts or arbitration. Godmansavgöranden cannot have the same legal meaning as a final judgement. Therefore, the decision should not constitute a procedural obstacle, either as res judicata or litis pendens nor be enforceable. These limitations may seem natural when, unlike court proceedings and arbitration, there does not exist any direct legal rules that govern the procedure of godmansavgöranden and guarantees fair trial for the parties. Godmansavgöranden can instead only be civilly binding. Basically the ruling can be described as having the same meaning as part of the agreement between the parties.
That the godmansavgörande does not hold legal validity is usually seen as a limitation in the significance of the resolution for the parties. In practice, however, this can be a misleading approach. Upon court proceedings, it is very possible, especially in an arbitration proceeding, that the godmansavgörande is considered to be a valid part of the agreement between the parties and is added unchanged as the basis for a final judgement. For a dissatisfied party it can prove to be very difficult to criticize a godmansavgörande, perhaps even more difficult than to criticize a traditional judgment of court or arbitration on formal grounds. On the other hand, it is conceivable that the agreement on godmansavgörande is annulled in its entirety because of its procedural nature, on the basis that such agreements are void. These issues, together with the difficulty to manage contractual content designed by others than the parties, risk making the dispute resolution by godmansavgörande difficult to assess.}},
author = {{Everett, Alexander}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Godmansavgöranden – att avtala bort rätten till prövning}},
year = {{2015}},
}