Advanced

Var får ni allt ifrån? - En studie av HD:s syn på avtalstolkning i allmänhet och tolkningsdata i synnerhet

Petersson, Alfred LU (2017) JURM02 20171
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I domstolar avgörs per idag flertalet mål genom avtalstolkning. Hur avtals-tolkning rättsligen ska klassificeras har under längre tid varit föremål för diskussion i doktrin. Något enhetligt svar på hur avtalstolkning som verksamhet ska klassificeras finns emellertid inte än idag. Förevarande uppsats ämnar undersöka huruvida HD har en mer långtgående rätt att beakta tolkningsdata än vad HD har att beakta exempelvis bevisfakta.

I dispositiva tvistemål är det, följt av vissa undantag, parterna som sätter ramarna för processen och det material som HD har rätt att beakta vid sitt avgörande. Detta följer av dispositionsprincipen. Vid avtalstolkning är det emellertid inte klarlagt huruvida HD håller sig inom de ramar som RB ställt till... (More)
I domstolar avgörs per idag flertalet mål genom avtalstolkning. Hur avtals-tolkning rättsligen ska klassificeras har under längre tid varit föremål för diskussion i doktrin. Något enhetligt svar på hur avtalstolkning som verksamhet ska klassificeras finns emellertid inte än idag. Förevarande uppsats ämnar undersöka huruvida HD har en mer långtgående rätt att beakta tolkningsdata än vad HD har att beakta exempelvis bevisfakta.

I dispositiva tvistemål är det, följt av vissa undantag, parterna som sätter ramarna för processen och det material som HD har rätt att beakta vid sitt avgörande. Detta följer av dispositionsprincipen. Vid avtalstolkning är det emellertid inte klarlagt huruvida HD håller sig inom de ramar som RB ställt till parternas förfogande. Mot bakgrund av HD:s avgöranden från senare tid tycks HD ha grundat sin tolkning på omständigheter som parterna varken explicit åberopat eller ens fört på tal. Vidare eftersöks ett mönster i HD:s syn på tolkningsdata. För att besvara dessa frågor har flertalet rättsfall från HD analyserats. Analysen har bedrivits på så vis att de tolkningsdata som HD i det aktuella målet lagt till grund för ett avgörande klarlagts. Dessa har sedan jämförts med de omständigheter som parterna grundat sin respektive talan på.

I uppsatsen konstateras att HD:s syn på tolkningsdata är inkonsekvent. I vissa av rättsfallen synes avtalstolkningen närmast utgöra bevisvärdering och HD har i dessa mål enbart beaktat omständigheter som parterna åberopat eller an-nars fört på tal. Däremot finns det rättsfall där HD ex officio beaktar tolkningsdata som parterna över huvud taget inte framfört. Främst tycks så ha varit fallet vid tolkning av standardavtal. I dessa fall får avtalstolkningen mer karaktärsdrag av rättstillämpning. En möjlig förklaring till detta är att HD lik-ställer standardavtal med något som liknar rättsregler. På så vis kan HD grunda sin rätt att ex officio beakta tolkningsdata enligt principen om jura novit curia. Med beaktande av den inkonsekvens som råder inom frågan blir svaret dessvärre att det för närvarande inte är möjligt att kartlägga ett mönster avseende HD:s syn på tolkningsdata. Att så är fallet kan inverka menligt på parternas rättssäkerhetsgarantier.

Utifrån uppsatsen kan således endast en rekommendation ges till avtalsförfattande parter. I första hand bör ett avtal författas så tydligt som möjligt för att på så sätt föregripa HD:s avtalstolkning. I andra hand bör parter i en tvist åberopa samtliga omständigheter de anser vara relevanta för tolkningen, och inte stanna vid exempelvis ordalydelsen. (Less)
Abstract
This thesis examines whether the Supreme Court of Sweden ex officio has a right to consider interpretation data to a higher degree than the court has in terms of evidentiary facts. In an action amenable to out-of-court settlement, it is up to the parties to set the limits of the trial. This means that the parties decide which information the court has the right to base its decision on. Some exceptions exist though. For example, a judge has the right to consider certain experiences and notorious facts. A judge also has the freedom to interpret the law and apply relevant rules to the circumstances of the case (jura novit curia), even though the parties have invoked other legal rules. However, it is somewhat unclear how these principles... (More)
This thesis examines whether the Supreme Court of Sweden ex officio has a right to consider interpretation data to a higher degree than the court has in terms of evidentiary facts. In an action amenable to out-of-court settlement, it is up to the parties to set the limits of the trial. This means that the parties decide which information the court has the right to base its decision on. Some exceptions exist though. For example, a judge has the right to consider certain experiences and notorious facts. A judge also has the freedom to interpret the law and apply relevant rules to the circumstances of the case (jura novit curia), even though the parties have invoked other legal rules. However, it is somewhat unclear how these principles relate to interpretation of contracts. In several cases where the court has interpreted contracts, the Supreme Court seems to form the basis of the interpretation on circumstances which the parties did not invoke. The purpose of this thesis is therefore to examine if this is the case, and if so, on what grounds the court bases this right on. Is it possible to consider interpretation of contracts as adjudication, or should it rather be seen as to evaluation of evidence?

Several recent decisions have shown some inconsistencies in the Court's handling of interpretation data. The paper has analyzed case law in which the court has considered circumstances that the parties themselves have not brought into the process. How the court considers this right has no clear answer. Most of these cases concern standard agreements. Possibly, the court views such types of agreements more as legal rules than private law agreements. In these situations, the court’s right is based on jura novit curia. However, in some cases, the court has simply considered what the parties spoke of during the procedure. Interpretation of contracts may in these cases resemble evaluation of evidence.

As the court handles the question in different ways depending on the case, it is not possible to establish a clear pattern on the matter. Finally, one might have to come to terms with the fact that there is no clear answer as to how interpretation data should be classified. That being the case may affect the legal certainty, which may be problematic.

The recommendation to contracting parties is firstly to try to put down as clear agreements as possible to prohibit the court’s own interpretation and, secondly, to invoke all the circumstances which the parties consider relevant for the interpretation to ensure that they cover all the material. In the latter case, the court probably has less interest in assuming what the parties have brought in to the procedure. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Petersson, Alfred LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Where Do You Get Everything From? - A study of the Supreme Court of Sweden's view of contractual intepretation in general, and intepretation data in particular
course
JURM02 20171
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
civilprocessrätt, civil procedure, avtalsrätt, contract law, civilrätt, private law, avtalstolkning, tolkningsdata, intepretation
language
Swedish
id
8908781
date added to LUP
2017-06-13 09:30:10
date last changed
2017-06-13 09:30:10
@misc{8908781,
  abstract     = {This thesis examines whether the Supreme Court of Sweden ex officio has a right to consider interpretation data to a higher degree than the court has in terms of evidentiary facts. In an action amenable to out-of-court settlement, it is up to the parties to set the limits of the trial. This means that the parties decide which information the court has the right to base its decision on. Some exceptions exist though. For example, a judge has the right to consider certain experiences and notorious facts. A judge also has the freedom to interpret the law and apply relevant rules to the circumstances of the case (jura novit curia), even though the parties have invoked other legal rules. However, it is somewhat unclear how these principles relate to interpretation of contracts. In several cases where the court has interpreted contracts, the Supreme Court seems to form the basis of the interpretation on circumstances which the parties did not invoke. The purpose of this thesis is therefore to examine if this is the case, and if so, on what grounds the court bases this right on. Is it possible to consider interpretation of contracts as adjudication, or should it rather be seen as to evaluation of evidence?

Several recent decisions have shown some inconsistencies in the Court's handling of interpretation data. The paper has analyzed case law in which the court has considered circumstances that the parties themselves have not brought into the process. How the court considers this right has no clear answer. Most of these cases concern standard agreements. Possibly, the court views such types of agreements more as legal rules than private law agreements. In these situations, the court’s right is based on jura novit curia. However, in some cases, the court has simply considered what the parties spoke of during the procedure. Interpretation of contracts may in these cases resemble evaluation of evidence.

As the court handles the question in different ways depending on the case, it is not possible to establish a clear pattern on the matter. Finally, one might have to come to terms with the fact that there is no clear answer as to how interpretation data should be classified. That being the case may affect the legal certainty, which may be problematic.

The recommendation to contracting parties is firstly to try to put down as clear agreements as possible to prohibit the court’s own interpretation and, secondly, to invoke all the circumstances which the parties consider relevant for the interpretation to ensure that they cover all the material. In the latter case, the court probably has less interest in assuming what the parties have brought in to the procedure.},
  author       = {Petersson, Alfred},
  keyword      = {civilprocessrätt,civil procedure,avtalsrätt,contract law,civilrätt,private law,avtalstolkning,tolkningsdata,intepretation},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Var får ni allt ifrån? - En studie av HD:s syn på avtalstolkning i allmänhet och tolkningsdata i synnerhet},
  year         = {2017},
}