Advanced

Tredjemansskador enligt AB 04 - Mot bakgrund av Högsta domstolens tolkningsmetod beträffande entreprenadavtal

Kuz, Patricia LU (2016) JURM02 20162
Department of Law
Abstract
One distinctive characteristic of construction projects is that it generally consists of complex and time-consuming constructions requiring collaboration across multiple disciplines. The term construction refers to larger construction buildings, constructions and installation works performed by a contractor on behalf of a contracting authority. Swedish law does not regulate this complex field. This has therefor resulted in the wide use of standard forms for consultancy and construction agreements where the standard agreement, AB 04, is the main agreement in the construction industry as well as for this thesis.

The purpose of this thesis is to clarify and to examine the scope of third party damage as referred to in AB 04. A third party... (More)
One distinctive characteristic of construction projects is that it generally consists of complex and time-consuming constructions requiring collaboration across multiple disciplines. The term construction refers to larger construction buildings, constructions and installation works performed by a contractor on behalf of a contracting authority. Swedish law does not regulate this complex field. This has therefor resulted in the wide use of standard forms for consultancy and construction agreements where the standard agreement, AB 04, is the main agreement in the construction industry as well as for this thesis.

The purpose of this thesis is to clarify and to examine the scope of third party damage as referred to in AB 04. A third party damage can by definition be explained as a material loss due to another persons property or personal injury. Chapter 5 § 13 AB 04 regulates how this responsibility shall be shared between the contracting authority and the contractor in the case of a third party damage. The definition of who can be included in the third party-term as well as which types of liability the provision includes, is essential for the proportion of liabilities between the contracting authority and the contractor. Such a definition cannot be found in the AB-agreement.

Damage due to a construction project can cause damage both to the parties set in the construction agreement as well as to a third party. In such an event, the question is who of the parties shall be held liable for such damages. It is not possible to, in an agreement, regulate who shall be held liable towards a third party at the first stage. Chapter 5 § 13 AB 04 regulates who is to bear the ultimate liability, if the client or contractor shall be imposed liable for the damages issued by the other party. During the last years the Swedish Supreme Court has in a number of precedent-setting rulings analysed various provisions in the AB-agreements. The Court has evolved a methodological interpretation method according to which the third party provision can be interpreted. The foundation for this interpretation includes an observation of the common intention of the parties, the agreements objective content and the wording of the provision. The Court may also employ a more liberal interpretation, which includes giving optional provisions a specific consideration. After having interpreted the third party provision in the light of this methodology, I believe that more speaks for an extended interpretation of the provision to include all cases of non-contractual liability and to some extent contractual liability, than for a limited interpretation to include only one type of responsibility.

The third party provision has not been subject to any change during the last revision of the AB 92. Nevertheless, due to the uncertainty in the industry the question will hopefully be answered by the now impending revision of the AB 04. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Ett utmärkande karaktärsdrag hos entreprenader är att de i regel avser ett omfattande, komplicerat och långsiktigt arbete med flera inblandade parter. Detta komplexa område är inte lagreglerat i svensk rätt. Med termen entreprenad åsyftas större byggnads-, anläggnings- och installationsarbeten som utförs av en entreprenör för en beställares räkning. Denna typ av arbeten regleras genom agreed documents benämnda Allmänna bestämmelser framtagna av entreprenadbranschen. Standardavtalet AB 04 är det centrala för denna framställning och det är även det dominerande i entreprenadbranschen.

Syftet med denna framställning är att klargöra och utreda hur tredjemansskador regleras i entreprenadrätten samt utreda dess omfattning. Tredjemansskador... (More)
Ett utmärkande karaktärsdrag hos entreprenader är att de i regel avser ett omfattande, komplicerat och långsiktigt arbete med flera inblandade parter. Detta komplexa område är inte lagreglerat i svensk rätt. Med termen entreprenad åsyftas större byggnads-, anläggnings- och installationsarbeten som utförs av en entreprenör för en beställares räkning. Denna typ av arbeten regleras genom agreed documents benämnda Allmänna bestämmelser framtagna av entreprenadbranschen. Standardavtalet AB 04 är det centrala för denna framställning och det är även det dominerande i entreprenadbranschen.

Syftet med denna framställning är att klargöra och utreda hur tredjemansskador regleras i entreprenadrätten samt utreda dess omfattning. Tredjemansskador kan definitionsmässigt förklaras som en allmän förmögenhetsskada till följd av någon annans person- eller sakskada. Begreppet förekommer även i entreprenadrätten i kap. 5 § 13 AB 04 som reglerar ansvarsfördelningen mellan beställare och entreprenör för en skada som drabbat tredje man. Definitionen av vem som utgör tredje man samt vilka typer av skadeståndsansvar begreppet innefattar är central för ansvarsfördelningen mellan beställare och entreprenör. En sådan definition saknas dock i AB-avtalet.

Skador till följd av en entreprenad kan drabba såväl parter i entreprenadavtalet som tredje man. Vid uppkomsten av en sådan skada är det frågan om vem av parterna som slutligen ska bära denna skadeståndsskyldighet. Det är inte möjligt att i avtal reglera vem som ska hållas ansvarig gentemot tredje man i det första ledet. Kap. 5 § 13 AB 04 reglerar vem det slutliga ansvaret tillfaller, om det är beställaren eller entreprenören som åläggs betalningsansvar för det skadestånd någon av parterna har fått utge. Enligt bestämmelsens ordalydelse tycks det inte föreligga någon begränsning av det skadeståndsansvar som entreprenören kan överta från beställaren. Under de senaste åren har Högsta domstolen i en rad prejudicerande avgöranden haft anledning att tolka diverse bestämmelser i AB-avtalen. Domstolen har utvecklat en tolkningsmetod mot vilken tredjemansbestämmelsen kan tolkas. Grunden för denna tolkning är den gemensamma partsavsikten, avtalets objektiva innehåll och bestämmelsens ordalydelse. En friare tolkning där bland annat dispositiv rätt särskilt beaktas kan göras där hänsyn tas till entreprenadrättens särdrag. Slutligen görs en övergripande bedömning av om tolkningen förfaller rimlig. Efter att ha tolkat tredjemansbestämmelsen mot bakgrund av denna metodik anser jag att mer talar för en utvidgad tolkning att omfatta samtliga utomkontraktuella skadeståndsanspråk samt även i viss mån vissa inomkontraktuella sådana, än för en begränsad tolkning av bestämmelsen som avgränsas till att endast omfatta en typ av ansvar.

Tredjemansbestämmelsen har inte varit föremål för ändring vid den senaste revideringen av AB 92 men på grund av den osäkerhet som råder i branschen kommer förhoppningsvis frågan att besvaras vid den nu nalkande revideringen av AB 04. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Kuz, Patricia LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Third party damage according to AB 04 - In the light of the Swedish Supreme Court's interpretation of the construction agreement
course
JURM02 20162
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
tredjemansskada, tredje man, AB 04, entreprenadrätt, standardavtal, avtalstolkning, avtalsrätt
language
Swedish
id
8897794
date added to LUP
2017-01-22 16:04:50
date last changed
2017-01-22 16:04:50
@misc{8897794,
  abstract     = {One distinctive characteristic of construction projects is that it generally consists of complex and time-consuming constructions requiring collaboration across multiple disciplines. The term construction refers to larger construction buildings, constructions and installation works performed by a contractor on behalf of a contracting authority. Swedish law does not regulate this complex field. This has therefor resulted in the wide use of standard forms for consultancy and construction agreements where the standard agreement, AB 04, is the main agreement in the construction industry as well as for this thesis. 

The purpose of this thesis is to clarify and to examine the scope of third party damage as referred to in AB 04. A third party damage can by definition be explained as a material loss due to another persons property or personal injury. Chapter 5 § 13 AB 04 regulates how this responsibility shall be shared between the contracting authority and the contractor in the case of a third party damage. The definition of who can be included in the third party-term as well as which types of liability the provision includes, is essential for the proportion of liabilities between the contracting authority and the contractor. Such a definition cannot be found in the AB-agreement. 

Damage due to a construction project can cause damage both to the parties set in the construction agreement as well as to a third party. In such an event, the question is who of the parties shall be held liable for such damages. It is not possible to, in an agreement, regulate who shall be held liable towards a third party at the first stage. Chapter 5 § 13 AB 04 regulates who is to bear the ultimate liability, if the client or contractor shall be imposed liable for the damages issued by the other party. During the last years the Swedish Supreme Court has in a number of precedent-setting rulings analysed various provisions in the AB-agreements. The Court has evolved a methodological interpretation method according to which the third party provision can be interpreted. The foundation for this interpretation includes an observation of the common intention of the parties, the agreements objective content and the wording of the provision. The Court may also employ a more liberal interpretation, which includes giving optional provisions a specific consideration. After having interpreted the third party provision in the light of this methodology, I believe that more speaks for an extended interpretation of the provision to include all cases of non-contractual liability and to some extent contractual liability, than for a limited interpretation to include only one type of responsibility.

The third party provision has not been subject to any change during the last revision of the AB 92. Nevertheless, due to the uncertainty in the industry the question will hopefully be answered by the now impending revision of the AB 04.},
  author       = {Kuz, Patricia},
  keyword      = {tredjemansskada,tredje man,AB 04,entreprenadrätt,standardavtal,avtalstolkning,avtalsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Tredjemansskador enligt AB 04 - Mot bakgrund av Högsta domstolens tolkningsmetod beträffande entreprenadavtal},
  year         = {2016},
}