Nu räcker det! - Avbeställning i obligationsrätten, särskilt om entreprenadavtal
(2015) LAGM01 20152Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Det anses enligt många entreprenadrättsjurister föreligga en rätt till avbeställning för beställaren i ett entreprenadavtal. Emellertid regleras inte avbeställning uttryckligen i AB 04, det standardavtal som tillämpas på en överhängande majoritet av entreprenadavtalen i Sverige. Avsikten med förevarande framställning är därför att analysera hur en domstol skulle bedöma en konfliktsituation där rätten till avbeställning ska avgöras mellan två kommersiella parter. Grunden för problematiken ligger i hur den rättsliga bedömningen ska göras av ett standardavtal som reglerar en avtalstyp som saknar auktoritativa rättskällor. Ledning måste här tas av den tolkningsmodell gällande entreprenadavtal som HD uppställt i avgöranden från de senaste åren... (More)
- Det anses enligt många entreprenadrättsjurister föreligga en rätt till avbeställning för beställaren i ett entreprenadavtal. Emellertid regleras inte avbeställning uttryckligen i AB 04, det standardavtal som tillämpas på en överhängande majoritet av entreprenadavtalen i Sverige. Avsikten med förevarande framställning är därför att analysera hur en domstol skulle bedöma en konfliktsituation där rätten till avbeställning ska avgöras mellan två kommersiella parter. Grunden för problematiken ligger i hur den rättsliga bedömningen ska göras av ett standardavtal som reglerar en avtalstyp som saknar auktoritativa rättskällor. Ledning måste här tas av den tolkningsmodell gällande entreprenadavtal som HD uppställt i avgöranden från de senaste åren och den bakomliggande dispositiva rätten, särskilt köprätten och obligationsrätten.
Det är nödvändigt att angripa problemställningen genom att analysera de regleringar i AB 04 som anses föreskriva en rätt till avbeställning. Avtalsklausuler i standardavtal är sällan föremål för individuella förhandlingar varför en annan tolkningsmodell krävs än vid traditionell avtalstolkning. Härav följer att någon gemensam partsavsikt svårligen kan utrönas varför tolkningens fokus istället inriktas på om avtalsvillkorets ordalydelse ger ett enhetligt svar. Varje avtalsvillkor ska läsas tillsammans med övriga avtalsvillkor då avtalet ska ses som en sammanhängande helhet och hänsyn ska även tas till avtalets systematik. Om en rätt till avbeställning inte anses föreligga enligt avtalsvillkorens lydelse ska de läsas i ljuset av den dispositiva rätten där köprätten och obligationsrätten särskilt ska beaktas.
Efter denna bedömning förespråkar framställningen att en rätt till avbeställning för beställaren inte kan anses föreligga enligt AB 04. Anledningen härav är att avtalsvillkorens lydelse till synes reglerar hur slutavräkning ska företas när en entreprenad omfattar både tillkommande och avgående arbeten. Hade det varit kontraktsskrivarnas avsikt att avtalet skulle innefatta en avbeställningsrätt hade detta uttryckligen kunnat föreskrivas. Däremot ger den dispositiva rätten vid handen att en avbeställningsrätt föreligger för beställaren, förutsatt att entreprenören utfår avbeställningsersättning. Dels föreskrivs en rätt till avbeställning för tillverkningsköp i köplagen, dels har det länge ansetts föreligga en sådan rätt gällande tillverknings- och entreprenadavtal i obligationsrätten.
Om en rätt till avbeställning föreligger måste även utformningen av en sådan rättsregel samt hur ersättningsberäkningen ska göras analyseras. Det mest lämpliga bör enligt min bedömning vara en generell avbeställningsrätt då det främjar förutsägbarheten av rättsregeln för avtalsparterna. En sådan regel är dessutom redan lagstadgad för tillverkningsköp och entreprenader som omfattas av konsumenttjänstlagen vilket främjar en enhetlig rättsbildning. Framställningen diskuterar avslutningsvis vilka avvägningar som bör göras för att avgöra ersättningens storlek. (Less) - Abstract
- According to several construction law attorneys there seems to exist a right for the buyer to cancel an order according to a construction contract. However, the right of cancellation is not expressively regulated in AB 04, the standard form contract applicable to the vast majority of the construction contracts in Sweden. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to examine how a Swedish court would decide a conflict between two commercial parties, about the right of cancellation. The root to the problem is how the legal assessment is made of a standard form governing a type of contract without authoritative legislation. Hence, guidance must be taken from the model of interpretation established by the Supreme Court of Sweden, applicable on... (More)
- According to several construction law attorneys there seems to exist a right for the buyer to cancel an order according to a construction contract. However, the right of cancellation is not expressively regulated in AB 04, the standard form contract applicable to the vast majority of the construction contracts in Sweden. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to examine how a Swedish court would decide a conflict between two commercial parties, about the right of cancellation. The root to the problem is how the legal assessment is made of a standard form governing a type of contract without authoritative legislation. Hence, guidance must be taken from the model of interpretation established by the Supreme Court of Sweden, applicable on construction contracts and the general principles of contract law, particularly sales law.
It is necessary to approach the issue by examining the regulations in AB 04 that considers prescribing a right of cancellation. The terms of the contracts in the standard forms are rarely subject to individual negotiations; therefore an alternative model of interpretation is required rather than a traditional interpretation. Thus, the mutual intent of the parties is difficult to establish, why the focus of the interpretation instead need to address if the wording of the terms of the contract has a clear meaning. Every term of the contract shall be read together with the other terms of the contract, since the contract is to be seen as a coherent entity and considerations shall also be made to the systematics of the contract. If a right of cancellation does not exist, according to the wording of the terms of the contract, they shall be read in the light of the optional law where, regarding construction contracts, sales law and law of contracts particularly shall be considered.
After above-mentioned judgement, this thesis advocates that a right of cancellation for the buyer does not exist according to AB 04. The reason hereof is that the wording of the terms of the contract appears to regulate how the final price settlement is made when a contract includes both incoming and outgoing work and not a right of cancellation. If it had been the author of the contracts’ intent to include a right of cancellation it would have been expressively written in the standard form. On the contrary the optional law indicates that there is a right of cancellation for the buyer, provided that the contractor is guaranteed compensation for the cancellation. There is a right of cancellation prescribed in the Sale of Goods Act regarding goods made especially for the buyer, for a long time it has also been considered to exist a right of cancellation regarding manufacturing and construction contracts within the optional law.
If a right of cancellation exists then an analysis must be made of how the legal rule is framed and how the compensation shall be made. The most appropriate rule is a general right of cancellation since this promotes the foreseeability of the legal rule for the contracting parties. Such a rule is furthermore already laid down in law regarding sales of goods made especially for the buyer and construction contracts applicable of the Consumer Services Act, which promotes a uniform legislation. This thesis discusses in conclusion which considerations that are necessary to decide the size of the compensation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8511338
- author
- Ekesbo, Jakob LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- That is enough! - Cancellation in law of contracts, especially about construction contract
- course
- LAGM01 20152
- year
- 2015
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- förmögenhetsrätt, civilrätt, avtalstolkning, entreprenad, entreprenadavtal
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8511338
- date added to LUP
- 2016-01-27 14:27:55
- date last changed
- 2016-02-25 18:35:41
@misc{8511338,
abstract = {{According to several construction law attorneys there seems to exist a right for the buyer to cancel an order according to a construction contract. However, the right of cancellation is not expressively regulated in AB 04, the standard form contract applicable to the vast majority of the construction contracts in Sweden. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to examine how a Swedish court would decide a conflict between two commercial parties, about the right of cancellation. The root to the problem is how the legal assessment is made of a standard form governing a type of contract without authoritative legislation. Hence, guidance must be taken from the model of interpretation established by the Supreme Court of Sweden, applicable on construction contracts and the general principles of contract law, particularly sales law.
It is necessary to approach the issue by examining the regulations in AB 04 that considers prescribing a right of cancellation. The terms of the contracts in the standard forms are rarely subject to individual negotiations; therefore an alternative model of interpretation is required rather than a traditional interpretation. Thus, the mutual intent of the parties is difficult to establish, why the focus of the interpretation instead need to address if the wording of the terms of the contract has a clear meaning. Every term of the contract shall be read together with the other terms of the contract, since the contract is to be seen as a coherent entity and considerations shall also be made to the systematics of the contract. If a right of cancellation does not exist, according to the wording of the terms of the contract, they shall be read in the light of the optional law where, regarding construction contracts, sales law and law of contracts particularly shall be considered.
After above-mentioned judgement, this thesis advocates that a right of cancellation for the buyer does not exist according to AB 04. The reason hereof is that the wording of the terms of the contract appears to regulate how the final price settlement is made when a contract includes both incoming and outgoing work and not a right of cancellation. If it had been the author of the contracts’ intent to include a right of cancellation it would have been expressively written in the standard form. On the contrary the optional law indicates that there is a right of cancellation for the buyer, provided that the contractor is guaranteed compensation for the cancellation. There is a right of cancellation prescribed in the Sale of Goods Act regarding goods made especially for the buyer, for a long time it has also been considered to exist a right of cancellation regarding manufacturing and construction contracts within the optional law.
If a right of cancellation exists then an analysis must be made of how the legal rule is framed and how the compensation shall be made. The most appropriate rule is a general right of cancellation since this promotes the foreseeability of the legal rule for the contracting parties. Such a rule is furthermore already laid down in law regarding sales of goods made especially for the buyer and construction contracts applicable of the Consumer Services Act, which promotes a uniform legislation. This thesis discusses in conclusion which considerations that are necessary to decide the size of the compensation.}},
author = {{Ekesbo, Jakob}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Nu räcker det! - Avbeställning i obligationsrätten, särskilt om entreprenadavtal}},
year = {{2015}},
}