Advanced

Säljarens upplysningsplikt vid fastighetsöverlåtelser – efter Högsta domstolens avgörande i NJA 2007 s. 86

Waldebrink, Johan LU (2017) LAGF03 20171
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Säljaren av en fastighet ansvarar för att fastigheten lever upp till vad som följer av köpeavtalet. För att fördela ansvaret för egenskaper som inte omfattas av avtalet har köparen belagts med vad som kan kallas för en undersökningsplikt. Köparen har inte rätt att åberopa ett fel som varit upptäckbart vid en undersökning av fastigheten. I vissa fall tillåts dock köparen åberopa ett fel trots att denne eftersatt sin undersökningsplikt. Genom praxis har nämligen vuxit fram en plikt för säljaren att i vissa fall upplysa om fel som denne känner till. Säljarens vetskap om ett fel, tillsammans med dennes underlåtenhet att upplysa köparen om detsamma, kan förta säljarens rätt att åberopa att köparen har eftersatt sin undersökningsplikt. På så... (More)
Säljaren av en fastighet ansvarar för att fastigheten lever upp till vad som följer av köpeavtalet. För att fördela ansvaret för egenskaper som inte omfattas av avtalet har köparen belagts med vad som kan kallas för en undersökningsplikt. Köparen har inte rätt att åberopa ett fel som varit upptäckbart vid en undersökning av fastigheten. I vissa fall tillåts dock köparen åberopa ett fel trots att denne eftersatt sin undersökningsplikt. Genom praxis har nämligen vuxit fram en plikt för säljaren att i vissa fall upplysa om fel som denne känner till. Säljarens vetskap om ett fel, tillsammans med dennes underlåtenhet att upplysa köparen om detsamma, kan förta säljarens rätt att åberopa att köparen har eftersatt sin undersökningsplikt. På så sätt kan säljaren sägas ha en upplysningsplikt. Hur långt denna plikt sträcker sig är inte helt klart i alla situationer, något som denna uppsats syftar till att utreda.

Klart är att en säljare som friskrivit sig från köparens rätt att göra påföljder gällande är skyldig att upplysa köparen om dolda fel. Upplysningsplikten fyller då en självständig funktion genom att begränsa verkan av friskrivningsklausulen. En mer komplicerad fråga är om säljaren även har en plikt att upplysa köparen om fel då säljaren inte friskrivit sig från ansvar. Högsta domstolen har slagit fast att säljaren inte behöver upplysa köparen om sina misstankar om att fel föreligger. Inte heller behöver säljaren företa egna undersökningar av fastigheten.

I NJA 2007 s. 86 ålade Högsta domstolen säljaren upplysningsplikt för ett fel som köparen ”utan nämnvärd svårighet” hade kunnat upptäcka. Avgörandet kom att kritiseras för att utsträcka säljarens upplysningsplikt alltför långt och för att riskera en rubbning av den tidigare gällande ansvarsfördelningen. Samtidigt menade många att avgörandet inte utgjorde något större avsteg från tidigare praxis och att säljaren bara ålades upplysningsplikt i vissa fall. Denna uppsats lyfter fram och analyserar de olika uppfattningar som finns om avgörandets betydelse. Syftet är att avgöra vilken påverkan avgörandet har fått på rättsläget, och i förlängningen hur långt säljarens upplysningsplikt sträcker sig. Till stöd för min slutsats har den juridiska litteraturen, och de där framförda argumenten, studerats tillsammans med rättspraxis och förarbeten. Undersökningen av dessa källor kompletteras med en empirisk studie av hur tingsrätten och hovrätten tillämpar avgörandet. Uppsatsen avslutas med en analys som resulterar i slutsatsen att Högsta domstolens avgörande inte har inneburit någon drastisk förändring av rättsläget. Upplysningsplikten tar enbart sikte på situationer då säljaren har utnyttjat köparens okunskap på ett sätt som gör det olämpligt att köparen får bära ansvaret för ett fel. Det rör sig om en plikt som bara aktualiseras i vissa fall, nämligen då säljaren känt till att köparen var i villfarelse om ett fel som kunnat vara avgörande för köparens beslut att köpa fastigheten. (Less)
Abstract
The seller of a property is liable for the property being consistent with the terms of the purchase agreement. In order to allocate liability for defects in the property not covered by the agreement, the buyer has been imposed with what can be called an obligation to examine the property. The buyer has no right to invoke a defect, which has been detectable at an examination of the property. However, in some cases, the buyer is entitled to invoke a defect even though the buyer neglected his obligation to examine the property. By case law has been established that the seller, in some cases, has an obligation to inform the buyer about defects that the seller knows exists. The seller’s knowledge of a defect, along with his omission to inform... (More)
The seller of a property is liable for the property being consistent with the terms of the purchase agreement. In order to allocate liability for defects in the property not covered by the agreement, the buyer has been imposed with what can be called an obligation to examine the property. The buyer has no right to invoke a defect, which has been detectable at an examination of the property. However, in some cases, the buyer is entitled to invoke a defect even though the buyer neglected his obligation to examine the property. By case law has been established that the seller, in some cases, has an obligation to inform the buyer about defects that the seller knows exists. The seller’s knowledge of a defect, along with his omission to inform the buyer about the defect, may deprive the seller his right to invoke that the buyer has neglected his obligation to examine the property. In this way, the seller can be said to have an obligation to disclose information about defects in the property. How far that obligation extends is not entirely clear, something that this thesis aims to straighten out.

It is established that when a purchase agreement contains a non-liability clause, the seller is obligated to inform the seller about latent defects. In that case the sellers obligation to disclose information fills a particular function by limiting the effect of the non-liability clause. A more complicated issue is whether the seller also has an obligation to disclose information when the purchase agreement does not contain a non-liability clause. The Supreme Court has established that the seller is not required to inform the seller about his suspicions that a defect exists. Nor is the seller required to perform his own examination of the property.

In the case NJA 2007 s. 86 the Supreme Court imposed the seller with an obligation to inform the buyer about a defect, which the buyer had been able to detect without notable difficulty. The decision came to be criticized for extending the seller’s obligation to disclose information too far, as well as for risking a disruption of the allocation of liability between the seller and the buyer. At the same time, many considered the decision not to constitute a major departure from precedents, and that a seller were only obliged to disclose information under certain circumstances. This thesis highlights and analyses the different perceptions about the significance of the decision. The purpose of this thesis is to determine what impact the decision has had on the legal position, and thereby also determine the extension of the seller’s obligation to disclose information. In support of my conclusion I have studied doctrine, and the arguments presented therein, along with case law and legislative history. To supplement these sources, I have conducted an empirical study of how the District Court and the Court of Appeal interprets the Supreme Court decision. The thesis ends with an analysis that concludes that the decision has not resulted in any drastic change of the legal position. The seller’s obligation to disclose information is aimed solely at situations where the seller has used the buyer’s ignorance in a way that makes it inappropriate for the buyer to be liable for a defect. The obligation to disclose information is only actualized in certain cases, namely when the seller knew that the buyer was not aware of a defect that could be crucial for the buyer’s decision to buy the property. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Waldebrink, Johan LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20171
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
fastighetsrätt, avtalsrätt, köprätt, upplysningsplikt, undersökningsplikt
language
Swedish
id
8908176
date added to LUP
2017-06-29 13:10:40
date last changed
2017-06-29 13:10:40
@misc{8908176,
  abstract     = {The seller of a property is liable for the property being consistent with the terms of the purchase agreement. In order to allocate liability for defects in the property not covered by the agreement, the buyer has been imposed with what can be called an obligation to examine the property. The buyer has no right to invoke a defect, which has been detectable at an examination of the property. However, in some cases, the buyer is entitled to invoke a defect even though the buyer neglected his obligation to examine the property. By case law has been established that the seller, in some cases, has an obligation to inform the buyer about defects that the seller knows exists. The seller’s knowledge of a defect, along with his omission to inform the buyer about the defect, may deprive the seller his right to invoke that the buyer has neglected his obligation to examine the property. In this way, the seller can be said to have an obligation to disclose information about defects in the property. How far that obligation extends is not entirely clear, something that this thesis aims to straighten out.

It is established that when a purchase agreement contains a non-liability clause, the seller is obligated to inform the seller about latent defects. In that case the sellers obligation to disclose information fills a particular function by limiting the effect of the non-liability clause. A more complicated issue is whether the seller also has an obligation to disclose information when the purchase agreement does not contain a non-liability clause. The Supreme Court has established that the seller is not required to inform the seller about his suspicions that a defect exists. Nor is the seller required to perform his own examination of the property.

In the case NJA 2007 s. 86 the Supreme Court imposed the seller with an obligation to inform the buyer about a defect, which the buyer had been able to detect without notable difficulty. The decision came to be criticized for extending the seller’s obligation to disclose information too far, as well as for risking a disruption of the allocation of liability between the seller and the buyer. At the same time, many considered the decision not to constitute a major departure from precedents, and that a seller were only obliged to disclose information under certain circumstances. This thesis highlights and analyses the different perceptions about the significance of the decision. The purpose of this thesis is to determine what impact the decision has had on the legal position, and thereby also determine the extension of the seller’s obligation to disclose information. In support of my conclusion I have studied doctrine, and the arguments presented therein, along with case law and legislative history. To supplement these sources, I have conducted an empirical study of how the District Court and the Court of Appeal interprets the Supreme Court decision. The thesis ends with an analysis that concludes that the decision has not resulted in any drastic change of the legal position. The seller’s obligation to disclose information is aimed solely at situations where the seller has used the buyer’s ignorance in a way that makes it inappropriate for the buyer to be liable for a defect. The obligation to disclose information is only actualized in certain cases, namely when the seller knew that the buyer was not aware of a defect that could be crucial for the buyer’s decision to buy the property.},
  author       = {Waldebrink, Johan},
  keyword      = {fastighetsrätt,avtalsrätt,köprätt,upplysningsplikt,undersökningsplikt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Säljarens upplysningsplikt vid fastighetsöverlåtelser – efter Högsta domstolens avgörande i NJA 2007 s. 86},
  year         = {2017},
}