Advanced

Oj, nu gick det snett – vem betalar? - Entreprenörers ansvar för utvecklingsfel enligt konsumenttjänstlagen

Petersén, Maria LU (2016) JURM02 20161
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Under 1990-talet och fram till 2007 var det vanligt förekommande att byggnader uppfördes med en så kallad enstegstätad fasadkonstruktion. Det byggdes omkring 15 000 – 30 000 bostadshus med denna konstruktion, vilka omfattar 110 000 – 160 000 bostäder.

Ett stort antal av byggnaderna uppförda med den aktuella fasadkonstruktionen fick fukt- och mögelskador redan efter några år. År 2007 uppmärksammades problematiken med den enstegstätade fasadkonstruktionen i Sverige och det uppstod en omfattande diskussion kring metoden och fuktproblemen.

Problematiken illustreras väl av Myresjöhusfallet, NJA 2015 s. 110, där några tiotal villaägare stämde entreprenören med anledning av fukt- och mögelskador. Entreprenören hävdade bland annat att det... (More)
Under 1990-talet och fram till 2007 var det vanligt förekommande att byggnader uppfördes med en så kallad enstegstätad fasadkonstruktion. Det byggdes omkring 15 000 – 30 000 bostadshus med denna konstruktion, vilka omfattar 110 000 – 160 000 bostäder.

Ett stort antal av byggnaderna uppförda med den aktuella fasadkonstruktionen fick fukt- och mögelskador redan efter några år. År 2007 uppmärksammades problematiken med den enstegstätade fasadkonstruktionen i Sverige och det uppstod en omfattande diskussion kring metoden och fuktproblemen.

Problematiken illustreras väl av Myresjöhusfallet, NJA 2015 s. 110, där några tiotal villaägare stämde entreprenören med anledning av fukt- och mögelskador. Entreprenören hävdade bland annat att det förelåg utvecklingsfel och att bolaget således inte skulle ansvara för det. Konsumenttjänstlagen (KtjL) var inte tillämplig i fallet och frågan om utvecklingsfel behandlades inte. Högsta domstolen (HD) kom fram till att det förelåg fel i entreprenaden.

Det kan tänkas uppstå andra tvister vid konsumententreprenader där så kallade utvecklingsfel föreligger och KtjL är tillämplig. Frågan är då vad utgången skulle bli.

Denna framställning behandlar frågan om utvecklingsfel kan anses ingå i felbegreppet i KtjL. Uppsatsens slutsats är att utvecklingsfel omfattas av felbegreppet i KtjL vid två situationer. Antingen om det rör sig om en småhusentreprenad eller om det rör en konsumententreprenad där ansvar för utvecklingsfel får anses avtalat parterna emellan.

Vad som avses med utvecklingsfel på konsumententreprenadsområdet är inte givet. Det saknas en lagstadgad eller annars vedertagen definition. Olika källor ger utvecklingsfel olika innebörd. På produktansvarsområdet finns en lagstadgad definition och frågan om denna även kan gälla för konsumententreprenader har behandlats. Med tanke på att rättsområdena är särpräglade och väldigt olika varandra är det inte möjligt, eller ens eftersträvansvärt, med en allmängiltig definition av utvecklingsfel.

Som ett resultat av denna utredning har jag tagit fram följande definition av utvecklingsfel på konsumententreprenadsområdet:
”Bristfälligt resultat som uppkommit genom arbete som ansågs fackmässigt vid entreprenadens avlämnande beträffande använd konstruktion, använt material och utförande, och som vid senare tillfälle visat sig brista i kravet på fackmässighet.”

Vidare behandlar framställningen vilka konsekvenser det som kan uppkomma för konsumenter och byggbolag om utvecklingsfel skulle ingå i felbegreppet i KtjL. Det finns naturligtvis många konsekvenser, där följderna av Myresjöhusfallet har illustrerat några. Det finns både positiva och negativa följder för båda parter. (Less)
Abstract
During the 1990s and up until 2007, it was common that buildings were erected with a construction method known as External Thermal Insulation Composite System Walls. Around 15 000 – 30 000 residential buildings were built using this method and these constitute 110 000 – 160 000 residences.

A large number of the buildings constructed with the this method got damp and mold damage after only a few years. In 2007, the problem with the External Thermal Insulation Composite System Walls method was brought to light and an extensive discussion on the method and damp problems followed.

The problem is well illustrated by a case from the Swedish Supreme Court, the Myresjöhus case, NJA 2015 p. 110, where tens of homeowners sued the contractor... (More)
During the 1990s and up until 2007, it was common that buildings were erected with a construction method known as External Thermal Insulation Composite System Walls. Around 15 000 – 30 000 residential buildings were built using this method and these constitute 110 000 – 160 000 residences.

A large number of the buildings constructed with the this method got damp and mold damage after only a few years. In 2007, the problem with the External Thermal Insulation Composite System Walls method was brought to light and an extensive discussion on the method and damp problems followed.

The problem is well illustrated by a case from the Swedish Supreme Court, the Myresjöhus case, NJA 2015 p. 110, where tens of homeowners sued the contractor on account of damp and mold damage. The contractor claimed that among other things, there was a development fault and that the company therefore would not be responsible for it. The Consumer Services Act was not applicable in this case and the issue of development faults not addressed. The Supreme Court concluded that the buildings were faulty.

There may be other disputes over consumer construction contracts where the so-called development faults exist and the Consumer Services Act is applicable. The question is what the outcome would be then.

This paper addresses the issue of whether development faults can be considered part of the term faulty in Consumer Services Act. The essay concludes that development faults are included in the term faulty in the Consumer Services Act in two situations. Either in the case of a small house construction or when regarding a consumer construction contract where responsibility for development faults may be deemed agreed to between the parties.

What is considered a development fault within the consumer construction area is not given. There is no statutory or otherwise accepted definition. Different sources give different meanings to development faults. There is a legal definition within product liability area and the question of whether this may also apply to consumer construction contracts has been treated. Given that the branches of law are distinctive and very different from each other, it is not possible, or even desirable, to have a universal definition of development faults.

As a result of this investigation, I have developed the following definition for development faults in the consumer construction area:
"Inadequate result caused by work that was considered professional at the construction contract's delivery regarding used design, materials and performance, and which later on proved to be lacking in the requirement of professionalism."

The paper also addresses which consequences that would follow for consumers and construction companies if development faults would be included in the term ”faulty” in the Consumer Services Act. Naturally there are many consequences, where the effects of the Myresjöhus case has illustrated some. There are both positive and negative consequences for both parties. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Petersén, Maria LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Oops, something went wrong - who picks up the bill? - Contractor responsibility for development faults according to the Consumer Services Act
course
JURM02 20161
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
förmögenhetsrätt, avtalsrätt, entreprenad, entreprenadrätt, Myresjöhus, Myresjöhusfallet, Myresjöhusdomen, NJA 2015 s. 110, konsumententreprenad, konsumenttjänst, konsumenträtt, KtjL, ABS 95, utvecklingsfel, enstegstätade fasader, fel.
language
Swedish
id
8873792
date added to LUP
2016-06-23 14:22:00
date last changed
2016-06-23 14:22:00
@misc{8873792,
  abstract     = {During the 1990s and up until 2007, it was common that buildings were erected with a construction method known as External Thermal Insulation Composite System Walls. Around 15 000 – 30 000 residential buildings were built using this method and these constitute 110 000 – 160 000 residences.

A large number of the buildings constructed with the this method got damp and mold damage after only a few years. In 2007, the problem with the External Thermal Insulation Composite System Walls method was brought to light and an extensive discussion on the method and damp problems followed.
 
The problem is well illustrated by a case from the Swedish Supreme Court, the Myresjöhus case, NJA 2015 p. 110, where tens of homeowners sued the contractor on account of damp and mold damage. The contractor claimed that among other things, there was a development fault and that the company therefore would not be responsible for it. The Consumer Services Act was not applicable in this case and the issue of development faults not addressed. The Supreme Court concluded that the buildings were faulty.
 
There may be other disputes over consumer construction contracts where the so-called development faults exist and the Consumer Services Act is applicable. The question is what the outcome would be then.

This paper addresses the issue of whether development faults can be considered part of the term faulty in Consumer Services Act. The essay concludes that development faults are included in the term faulty in the Consumer Services Act in two situations. Either in the case of a small house construction or when regarding a consumer construction contract where responsibility for development faults may be deemed agreed to between the parties.

What is considered a development fault within the consumer construction area is not given. There is no statutory or otherwise accepted definition. Different sources give different meanings to development faults. There is a legal definition within product liability area and the question of whether this may also apply to consumer construction contracts has been treated. Given that the branches of law are distinctive and very different from each other, it is not possible, or even desirable, to have a universal definition of development faults. 

As a result of this investigation, I have developed the following definition for development faults in the consumer construction area:
"Inadequate result caused by work that was considered professional at the construction contract's delivery regarding used design, materials and performance, and which later on proved to be lacking in the requirement of professionalism."

The paper also addresses which consequences that would follow for consumers and construction companies if development faults would be included in the term ”faulty” in the Consumer Services Act. Naturally there are many consequences, where the effects of the Myresjöhus case has illustrated some. There are both positive and negative consequences for both parties.},
  author       = {Petersén, Maria},
  keyword      = {förmögenhetsrätt,avtalsrätt,entreprenad,entreprenadrätt,Myresjöhus,Myresjöhusfallet,Myresjöhusdomen,NJA 2015 s. 110,konsumententreprenad,konsumenttjänst,konsumenträtt,KtjL,ABS 95,utvecklingsfel,enstegstätade fasader,fel.},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Oj, nu gick det snett – vem betalar? - Entreprenörers ansvar för utvecklingsfel enligt konsumenttjänstlagen},
  year         = {2016},
}