Advanced

Obefogade hävningsförklaringar - ur ett köprättsligt perspektiv

Follin, Adam LU (2016) JURM02 20162
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Att häva ett avtal är en ingripande åtgärd varför hävningspåföljden endast kan göras gällande vid väsentliga avtalsbrott enligt svensk rätt. Denna framställning syftar till att dels undersöka hur väsentlighetsrekvisitet är utformat enligt gällande rätt, dels utforska vilka rättsverkningar som uppkommer för den som mottagit en obefogad hävningsförklaring i den bemärkelsen att väsentlighetsrekvisitet inte har uppfyllts.

Framställningen fokuserar på det kommersiella köpeavtalet och på säljarens avtalsbrott i form av dröjsmål och fel i varan, varför de centrala lagrummen utgörs av 25 och 29 §§ köplagen samt art. 25 CISG. Den rättsdogmatiska metoden har anlagts och allmänt vedertagna rättskällor som lagtext, förarbeten, praxis och doktrin... (More)
Att häva ett avtal är en ingripande åtgärd varför hävningspåföljden endast kan göras gällande vid väsentliga avtalsbrott enligt svensk rätt. Denna framställning syftar till att dels undersöka hur väsentlighetsrekvisitet är utformat enligt gällande rätt, dels utforska vilka rättsverkningar som uppkommer för den som mottagit en obefogad hävningsförklaring i den bemärkelsen att väsentlighetsrekvisitet inte har uppfyllts.

Framställningen fokuserar på det kommersiella köpeavtalet och på säljarens avtalsbrott i form av dröjsmål och fel i varan, varför de centrala lagrummen utgörs av 25 och 29 §§ köplagen samt art. 25 CISG. Den rättsdogmatiska metoden har anlagts och allmänt vedertagna rättskällor som lagtext, förarbeten, praxis och doktrin har tillämpats för att besvara frågorna om gällande rätt.

Det har konstaterats att ingen generell regel om hur väsentlighetsbedömningen går till kan anges men att förutsättningsläran inte synes vara ett hjälpmedel att beakta vid bedömningen. Eftersom det till stora delar saknas vägledning för bedömningen har det anförts att regleringen i art. 25 CISG och praxis gällande bestämmelsen möjligen kan användas som vägledning. Detta gäller särskilt vid fel i varan då väsentlighetsbedömningen i både art. 25 CISG och 39 § köplagen i stor utsträckning synes fästa avgörande vikt vid huruvida syftet med köpet i huvudsak blivit förfelat eller inte. Vid säljarens dröjsmål har det framkommit att hur lång tid dröjsmålet har förelegat är det centrala bedömningsmomentet och att detta påverkas av köpets karaktär. I samtliga situationer finns möjlighet för köparen att klargöra väsentligheten av avtalsenlig prestation i exempelvis avtalet.

För mottagaren av en obefogad hävningsförklaring har det framkommit att den mest komplicerade frågan är att bedöma huruvida den mottagna hävningsförklaringen verkligen är obefogad. Detta då mottagaren måste avgöra om denne själv begått ett väsentligt avtalsbrott och den väsentlighetsbedömningen är svår att göra.

Det har dock konstaterat att en obefogad hävningsförklaring torde kunna betraktas som både ett rent avtalsbrott och ett befarat avtalsbrott. Den obefogade hävningsförklaringen torde dock inte innebära att avtalet mellan parterna har upphört varför kritik har riktats mot termen ”obefogad hävning”, möjlighet finns fortfarande för mottagaren att kräva fullgörelse under vissa förutsättningar. Vilka rättsverkningar som uppkommer vi mottagandet av en obefogad hävningsförklaring är därför beroende av vilka strategiska val mottagaren väljer att vidta. Vidare har det konstaterats att en obefogad hävningsförklaring torde ge mottagaren en rätt att häva avtalet för egen del på grund av befarat avtalsbrott i den meningen att det föreligger ett befarat dröjsmål av den felaktigt hävande partens prestation. Detta befarade dröjsmål bör även kunna uppfattas som ett väsentligt dröjsmål då den felaktigt hävande parten gjort gällande att ingen prestation kommer att ske överhuvudtaget, varför dröjsmålets tid kan förväntas vara tillräckligt långt för att uppfylla väsentlighetsrekvisitet. (Less)
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to clarify the concept of ”fundamental breach” as a necessary prerequisite for avoidance of contracts. Moreover, this study will explore the legal consequences arising from an unjustified declaration of avoidance and which strategic choices the recipient of such a declaration of avoidance is facing.

The thesis is based on a traditional legal method and generally accepted sources of law such as legal text, the legislative history, case law and jurisprudence have been considered. Moreover, the thesis focuses on the swedish commercial sales contract, hence the 25 and 39 §§ in the Sale of Goods Act along with art. 25 in the The UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) are the most important... (More)
The purpose of this study is to clarify the concept of ”fundamental breach” as a necessary prerequisite for avoidance of contracts. Moreover, this study will explore the legal consequences arising from an unjustified declaration of avoidance and which strategic choices the recipient of such a declaration of avoidance is facing.

The thesis is based on a traditional legal method and generally accepted sources of law such as legal text, the legislative history, case law and jurisprudence have been considered. Moreover, the thesis focuses on the swedish commercial sales contract, hence the 25 and 39 §§ in the Sale of Goods Act along with art. 25 in the The UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) are the most important sections of law. A contract can be breached in numerous ways and this thesis has been limited to the seller’s delay in delivery of goods and the non-conformity of goods.

In summary, the conclusion is that a case-by-case assessment of what constitutes a fundamental breach has to be made. No general rule for the interpretation of what constitutes a fundamental breach has been found and the doctrine of assumptions has been rejected as an appropriate way to facilitate the assessment. Nevertheless, it has been argued that the assessment of art. 25 CISG and especially 39 § in the Sale of Goods Act indicates notable similarities, due to the fact that the assessments tend to concentrate on the whether the buyer has been deprived of what he was entitled to expect under the contract. Therefore it has been proposed that case law concerning CISG could be of interest even when the assessment is done from a national perspective. As for fundamental breach relating to the delay in the delivery of goods it has been argued that the delay in time is the essential criteria for the assessment, although the type of goods affect whether the delay is considered fundamental or not. The buyer has the opportunity to clarify the importance of contractual performance, preferably in the contract, to make a future breach considered fundamental.

Regarding the legal consequences arising from an unjustified declaration of avoidance it has been concluded that the most complicated question is to determine whether the declaration of avoidance is unjustified or not, due to the fact that the recipient of such avoidance has to assess if its own breach of contract is fundamental or not. Moreover it has been argued that the term ”unjustified avoidance” is slightly misleading since no avoidance of the contract has occurred, hence the recipient still has a chance to demand contractual performance. Therefore it might be more accurate to speak of an ”unjustified declaration of avoidance”. The legal consequences arising from an unjustified declaration of avoidance are determined by which actions the recipient chooses to take.

It has also been argued that the unjustified declaration of avoidance could be considered as both a breach of the contract as well as an anticipatory breach of the contract. Moreover, the recipient would be in its right to regard the unjustified declaration of avoidance as a fundamental anticipatory breach of the contract entitling the recipient to avoid the contract. It has been argued that the unjustified declaration of avoidance can be regarded as a clear message from the counterparty that no performance at all is to be expected, which makes the expected delay in time fundamental. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Follin, Adam LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Unjustified declarations of avoidance - from a sales law perspective
course
JURM02 20162
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
administrative law, förmögenhetsrätt, obefogad, hävning, hävningsförklaring, köplagen
language
Swedish
id
8897796
date added to LUP
2017-01-25 16:20:42
date last changed
2017-01-25 16:20:42
@misc{8897796,
  abstract     = {The purpose of this study is to clarify the concept of ”fundamental breach” as a necessary prerequisite for avoidance of contracts. Moreover, this study will explore the legal consequences arising from an unjustified declaration of avoidance and which strategic choices the recipient of such a declaration of avoidance is facing. 

The thesis is based on a traditional legal method and generally accepted sources of law such as legal text, the legislative history, case law and jurisprudence have been considered. Moreover, the thesis focuses on the swedish commercial sales contract, hence the 25 and 39 §§ in the Sale of Goods Act along with art. 25 in the The UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) are the most important sections of law. A contract can be breached in numerous ways and this thesis has been limited to the seller’s delay in delivery of goods and the non-conformity of goods.

In summary, the conclusion is that a case-by-case assessment of what constitutes a fundamental breach has to be made. No general rule for the interpretation of what constitutes a fundamental breach has been found and the doctrine of assumptions has been rejected as an appropriate way to facilitate the assessment. Nevertheless, it has been argued that the assessment of art. 25 CISG and especially 39 § in the Sale of Goods Act indicates notable similarities, due to the fact that the assessments tend to concentrate on the whether the buyer has been deprived of what he was entitled to expect under the contract. Therefore it has been proposed that case law concerning CISG could be of interest even when the assessment is done from a national perspective. As for fundamental breach relating to the delay in the delivery of goods it has been argued that the delay in time is the essential criteria for the assessment, although the type of goods affect whether the delay is considered fundamental or not. The buyer has the opportunity to clarify the importance of contractual performance, preferably in the contract, to make a future breach considered fundamental.

Regarding the legal consequences arising from an unjustified declaration of avoidance it has been concluded that the most complicated question is to determine whether the declaration of avoidance is unjustified or not, due to the fact that the recipient of such avoidance has to assess if its own breach of contract is fundamental or not. Moreover it has been argued that the term ”unjustified avoidance” is slightly misleading since no avoidance of the contract has occurred, hence the recipient still has a chance to demand contractual performance. Therefore it might be more accurate to speak of an ”unjustified declaration of avoidance”. The legal consequences arising from an unjustified declaration of avoidance are determined by which actions the recipient chooses to take.

It has also been argued that the unjustified declaration of avoidance could be considered as both a breach of the contract as well as an anticipatory breach of the contract. Moreover, the recipient would be in its right to regard the unjustified declaration of avoidance as a fundamental anticipatory breach of the contract entitling the recipient to avoid the contract. It has been argued that the unjustified declaration of avoidance can be regarded as a clear message from the counterparty that no performance at all is to be expected, which makes the expected delay in time fundamental.},
  author       = {Follin, Adam},
  keyword      = {administrative law,förmögenhetsrätt,obefogad,hävning,hävningsförklaring,köplagen},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Obefogade hävningsförklaringar - ur ett köprättsligt perspektiv},
  year         = {2016},
}