Advanced

Utomobligatoriska direktkrav – Om skadeståndsanspråk mot medkontrahentens medkontrahent

Kohrtz, Hanna LU (2016) JURM02 20162
Department of Law
Abstract
When the debtor of a contract delegates his duty to perform under the contract to a third party, a chain of contracts is created. This type of chain of contracts often appears within construction agreements, when the contractor enters into an agreement with a sub-contractor in order to fulfil his obligations towards the employer. If this third party commits a wrongful act, which causes harm to the creditor, the question arises if the creditor can claim damages from this third party, or if the creditor has to claim damages from his contracting party. The injured party (the creditor) and the tortfeasor (the third party) are not in a contractual relationship with each other, and contractual liability can therefore not be enforced. The next... (More)
When the debtor of a contract delegates his duty to perform under the contract to a third party, a chain of contracts is created. This type of chain of contracts often appears within construction agreements, when the contractor enters into an agreement with a sub-contractor in order to fulfil his obligations towards the employer. If this third party commits a wrongful act, which causes harm to the creditor, the question arises if the creditor can claim damages from this third party, or if the creditor has to claim damages from his contracting party. The injured party (the creditor) and the tortfeasor (the third party) are not in a contractual relationship with each other, and contractual liability can therefore not be enforced. The next inquiry is whether the injured party can resort to tort claims, based on the Swedish Tort Liability Act, or if the chain of contracts can prevent or affect this claim.

In this thesis, I aim to examine under which circumstances Swedish law allows an injured party to claim damages based on tortious liability from the tortfeasor of the wrongful act, when the two parties are linked together by a chain of contracts. Moreover, I investigate if it is of relevance if the two contractual relationships are based on the same agreed document and whether contractual content such as limitation of liability can affect the possibilities for tortious liability.

By examining case law from the Swedish Supreme Court, I conclude that there is no general rule that bars the injured party to claim damages based on tort liability from the tortfeasor, unless otherwise stated in a contract. However, there are many exceptions from this general conclusion. If the injured party and its debtor have entered into a contract based on the agreed document AB 92, the Swedish Supreme Court has in the case NJA 2007 s. 758 by interpretation of the agreement found that a right to damages based on tortious liability from a third party is excluded. In this thesis, I examine whether the scope of this precedent has been affected by the case NJA 2014 s. 760. Furthermore, I discuss the possibilities, on a general level, of interpreting an agreement between the creditor and the debtor as a third-party beneficiary contract. In conclusion, I find that the possible exceptions are difficult for courts to interpret and that this might lead to an increased number of litigations, if the contracting parties do not chose to regulate the issue in their contracts. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Om naturagäldenären i ett avtal delegerar vidare sin prestationsskyldighet enligt avtalet till en tredje part uppkommer en så kallad kontraktskedja. I praktiken är dessa vanligt förekommande, inte minst vid entreprenadavtal där en generalentreprenör kan anlita en mängd olika underentreprenörer för att uppfylla avtalsförpliktelsen mot beställaren. Om en sådan tredje part, det vill säga det bakre ledet av kontraktskedjan, vållar borgenären till avtalet en skada, uppkommer vissa frågor om borgenärens möjlighet att direkt kräva det bakre ledet på skadestånd. Den skadelidande kan ha varierande anledningar till att vilja kräva skadevållaren på ersättning istället för av sin medkontrahent. Den skadelidande och skadevållaren är inte i någon... (More)
Om naturagäldenären i ett avtal delegerar vidare sin prestationsskyldighet enligt avtalet till en tredje part uppkommer en så kallad kontraktskedja. I praktiken är dessa vanligt förekommande, inte minst vid entreprenadavtal där en generalentreprenör kan anlita en mängd olika underentreprenörer för att uppfylla avtalsförpliktelsen mot beställaren. Om en sådan tredje part, det vill säga det bakre ledet av kontraktskedjan, vållar borgenären till avtalet en skada, uppkommer vissa frågor om borgenärens möjlighet att direkt kräva det bakre ledet på skadestånd. Den skadelidande kan ha varierande anledningar till att vilja kräva skadevållaren på ersättning istället för av sin medkontrahent. Den skadelidande och skadevållaren är inte i någon avtalsrelation till varandra och som huvudregel i svensk rätt kan något skadestånd på inomobligatorisk grund inte utgå. Frågan är då om den skadelidande har möjlighet att grunda sitt skadeståndsanspråk mot skadevållaren på ett utomobligatoriskt ansvar enligt 2 kap. 1 § skadeståndslagen eller om förekomsten av en kontraktskedja hindrar eller begränsar en sådan talan.

I denna uppsats undersöker jag under vilka förutsättningar enligt svensk rätt som en skadelidande part kan rikta skadeståndsanspråk på utomobligatorisk grund mot en skadevållare i det bakre ledet av en kontraktskedja, något jag benämner för utomobligatoriska direktkrav. Jag undersöker där särskilt betydelsen av så kallade kopplade standardavtal, det vill säga att likalydande standardavtal är avtalade både i det främre och i det bakre ledet, samt i vilken mån ansvarsbegränsningar och villkor om korttidspreskription kan påverka möjligheten till sådant skadestånd.

Genom denna undersökning finner jag att det inte finns någon allmän kanaliseringsregel som hindrar den skadelidande från att rikta skadeståndsanspråk på utomobligatorisk grund, såtillvida inget annat följer av avtal. Huvudregeln modifieras dock av flera undantag. Ett viktigt sådant är om parterna i det främre ledet gjort standardavtalet AB 92, som används vid utförandeentreprenader, till avtalsinnehåll. Detta följer av NJA 2007 s. 758 och i uppsatsen diskuterar jag prejudikatets räckvidd efter avgörandet NJA 2014 s. 760. Vidare diskuterar jag möjligheten att tolka det främre ledets avtal såsom ett gynnande tredjemansavtal till förmån för det bakre ledet, med innebörden att den skadelidande har avtalat bort sin rätt att vända sig mot skadevållaren på utomobligatorisk grund. Jag finner sammanfattningsvis att de möjliga undantagssituationerna från huvudregeln är svårtolkade och att det kan tänkas ha en processdrivande effekt, om inte parter på förhand reglerar frågan. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Kohrtz, Hanna LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Chains of Contracts and Tortious Liability
course
JURM02 20162
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
skadeståndsrätt, tort law, kontraktskedja, avtalskedja, utomobligatoriska direktkrav
language
Swedish
id
8897716
date added to LUP
2017-01-27 14:01:08
date last changed
2017-01-27 14:01:08
@misc{8897716,
  abstract     = {When the debtor of a contract delegates his duty to perform under the contract to a third party, a chain of contracts is created. This type of chain of contracts often appears within construction agreements, when the contractor enters into an agreement with a sub-contractor in order to fulfil his obligations towards the employer. If this third party commits a wrongful act, which causes harm to the creditor, the question arises if the creditor can claim damages from this third party, or if the creditor has to claim damages from his contracting party. The injured party (the creditor) and the tortfeasor (the third party) are not in a contractual relationship with each other, and contractual liability can therefore not be enforced. The next inquiry is whether the injured party can resort to tort claims, based on the Swedish Tort Liability Act, or if the chain of contracts can prevent or affect this claim. 

In this thesis, I aim to examine under which circumstances Swedish law allows an injured party to claim damages based on tortious liability from the tortfeasor of the wrongful act, when the two parties are linked together by a chain of contracts. Moreover, I investigate if it is of relevance if the two contractual relationships are based on the same agreed document and whether contractual content such as limitation of liability can affect the possibilities for tortious liability. 

By examining case law from the Swedish Supreme Court, I conclude that there is no general rule that bars the injured party to claim damages based on tort liability from the tortfeasor, unless otherwise stated in a contract. However, there are many exceptions from this general conclusion. If the injured party and its debtor have entered into a contract based on the agreed document AB 92, the Swedish Supreme Court has in the case NJA 2007 s. 758 by interpretation of the agreement found that a right to damages based on tortious liability from a third party is excluded. In this thesis, I examine whether the scope of this precedent has been affected by the case NJA 2014 s. 760. Furthermore, I discuss the possibilities, on a general level, of interpreting an agreement between the creditor and the debtor as a third-party beneficiary contract. In conclusion, I find that the possible exceptions are difficult for courts to interpret and that this might lead to an increased number of litigations, if the contracting parties do not chose to regulate the issue in their contracts.},
  author       = {Kohrtz, Hanna},
  keyword      = {skadeståndsrätt,tort law,kontraktskedja,avtalskedja,utomobligatoriska direktkrav},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Utomobligatoriska direktkrav – Om skadeståndsanspråk mot medkontrahentens medkontrahent},
  year         = {2016},
}