Styrelsebegreppet i 8 kap. 35 § ABL
(2016) JURM02 20161Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- För att en styrelse ska anses ha rättshandlat i bolagets namn förutsätts att det är styrelsen, i den mening som avses i 8 kap. 35 § aktiebolagslagen (2005:551), ABL, som företagit rättshandlingen. Genom NJA 2005 s. 729 och NJA 2015 s. 312 har HD gjort bedömningar som påverkar innehållet i styrelsebegreppet. Enligt besluten är styrelsen behörig att teckna bolagets firma om den företräds av en sådan majoritet som kan fatta det beslut som ligger till grund för rättshandlingen.
Med begreppet styrelse i 8 kap. 35 § ABL ska således förstås en sådan majoritet styrelseledamöter som kan diktera ett beslut och som, om ett sammanträde hade hållits, hade kunnat uppfylla kravet på beslutförhet. Bolagsordningsföreskrifter innehållande särskilda krav... (More) - För att en styrelse ska anses ha rättshandlat i bolagets namn förutsätts att det är styrelsen, i den mening som avses i 8 kap. 35 § aktiebolagslagen (2005:551), ABL, som företagit rättshandlingen. Genom NJA 2005 s. 729 och NJA 2015 s. 312 har HD gjort bedömningar som påverkar innehållet i styrelsebegreppet. Enligt besluten är styrelsen behörig att teckna bolagets firma om den företräds av en sådan majoritet som kan fatta det beslut som ligger till grund för rättshandlingen.
Med begreppet styrelse i 8 kap. 35 § ABL ska således förstås en sådan majoritet styrelseledamöter som kan diktera ett beslut och som, om ett sammanträde hade hållits, hade kunnat uppfylla kravet på beslutförhet. Bolagsordningsföreskrifter innehållande särskilda krav på majoritetsbeslut och beslutförhet bör inte beaktas vid fastställandet av villkoren för att firmateckningsrätt ska föreligga.
Av besluten går det att utläsa att det inte är en nödvändig förutsättning för firmateckningsrätten att styrelsen fattat ett beslut med innebörd att företa en rättshandling. Därför påverkas inte styrelsens behörighet att företa en rättshandling av brister vid beslutsfattandet. Däremot kan detta få betydelse för bolagets bundenhet av rättshandlingen i ett senare led genom regeln om behörighets- och befogenhetsöverträdelser. Detta synsätt innebär en avvikelse från den uppfattning som tidigare framhållits inom rättsvetenskapen om styrelsens firmateckningsrätt och som grundades på vissa förarbetsuttalanden. Genom en analys av de motivuttalanden som varit tongivande för den tidigare rättsuppfattningen går det att utläsa att HD:s beslut är förenliga med förarbetena till bestämmelsen i 8 kap. 35 § ABL. (Less) - Abstract
- A prerequisite for the board of directors to commit a legal act on behalf of a company, is that the board has performed the legal act within the boundaries of the definition of the board found in chapter 8, section 35 of the Swedish Companies Act. In two decisions by the Supreme Court, NJA 2005 s. 729 and NJA 2015 s. 312, the court has passed judgements that affect the concept of the board. According to these decisions, the board is authorised to take a legal act if it is represented by the type of majority enabled to make the type of decision that is grounds for the legal act.
Accordingly, the concept of the board in chapter 8, section 35 of the Swedish Companies Act is to be interpreted as requiring, for a decision to be made, both a... (More) - A prerequisite for the board of directors to commit a legal act on behalf of a company, is that the board has performed the legal act within the boundaries of the definition of the board found in chapter 8, section 35 of the Swedish Companies Act. In two decisions by the Supreme Court, NJA 2005 s. 729 and NJA 2015 s. 312, the court has passed judgements that affect the concept of the board. According to these decisions, the board is authorised to take a legal act if it is represented by the type of majority enabled to make the type of decision that is grounds for the legal act.
Accordingly, the concept of the board in chapter 8, section 35 of the Swedish Companies Act is to be interpreted as requiring, for a decision to be made, both a majority of board members to vote in favour of the legal act and, if an actual meeting had been held, to have met the requirements of quorum. Specific regulations of majority decisions and quorum in the Articles of Association should not be taken into account when determining the authoritative conditions required to act as a company signatory.
It can be deduced from the decisions made by the Supreme Court that for the board to act as a company signatory, there is no requirement that the board has made a decision of significance to commit a legal act. Therefore, deficiencies in the decision-making will not affect the board’s authorisation to take a legal act. However, this may impact on the degree to which the company is legally bound to legal acts made, through the rule of authority and internal duty offenses. This implies a deviation from the previously stated concept in jurisprudence, based on statements in legislative history. Through analysing the statements that lay the foundation for the previous concept of justice, it is possible to deduce that the decisions made by the Supreme Court are consistent with the legislative history of the regulation in chapter 8, section 35 of the Swedish Companies Act. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8873616
- author
- Lönnegren, Fanny LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The concept of the bord of directors in in chapter 8, section 35 of the Swedish Companies Act
- course
- JURM02 20161
- year
- 2016
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- förmögenhetsrätt, aktiebolagsrätt, firmateckningsrätt, styrelse
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8873616
- date added to LUP
- 2016-06-14 11:09:15
- date last changed
- 2017-01-27 14:24:34
@misc{8873616,
abstract = {{A prerequisite for the board of directors to commit a legal act on behalf of a company, is that the board has performed the legal act within the boundaries of the definition of the board found in chapter 8, section 35 of the Swedish Companies Act. In two decisions by the Supreme Court, NJA 2005 s. 729 and NJA 2015 s. 312, the court has passed judgements that affect the concept of the board. According to these decisions, the board is authorised to take a legal act if it is represented by the type of majority enabled to make the type of decision that is grounds for the legal act.
Accordingly, the concept of the board in chapter 8, section 35 of the Swedish Companies Act is to be interpreted as requiring, for a decision to be made, both a majority of board members to vote in favour of the legal act and, if an actual meeting had been held, to have met the requirements of quorum. Specific regulations of majority decisions and quorum in the Articles of Association should not be taken into account when determining the authoritative conditions required to act as a company signatory.
It can be deduced from the decisions made by the Supreme Court that for the board to act as a company signatory, there is no requirement that the board has made a decision of significance to commit a legal act. Therefore, deficiencies in the decision-making will not affect the board’s authorisation to take a legal act. However, this may impact on the degree to which the company is legally bound to legal acts made, through the rule of authority and internal duty offenses. This implies a deviation from the previously stated concept in jurisprudence, based on statements in legislative history. Through analysing the statements that lay the foundation for the previous concept of justice, it is possible to deduce that the decisions made by the Supreme Court are consistent with the legislative history of the regulation in chapter 8, section 35 of the Swedish Companies Act.}},
author = {{Lönnegren, Fanny}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Styrelsebegreppet i 8 kap. 35 § ABL}},
year = {{2016}},
}