Advanced

Entreprenadrättsliga felpåföljder och följdskador i ett nordiskt perspektiv

Karlemark, Ian LU (2018) JURM02 20181
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Uppsatsens syfte är att behandla entreprenadrättsliga felpåföljder i vanligen använda standardavtal för byggbranschen i Sverige, Danmark och Norge. Vidare syftar uppsatsen till att utreda rättsföljderna för följdskador i respektive standardavtal och hur de olika standardavtalens riskfördelning är utformad. De nordiska länderna bygger på samma obligationsrättsliga ansats varför det var naturligt att jämföra liknande regler i Sverige, Danmark och Norge. I denna uppsats kommer jag således göra en komparativ undersökning med utgångspunkt i svenska AB 04, danska AB 92 och norska NS 8405. För att undersöka gällande rätt i Sverige, Danmark och Norge har en traditionell rättsdogmatisk metod använts. Vid jämförelsen av dessa resultat har en... (More)
Uppsatsens syfte är att behandla entreprenadrättsliga felpåföljder i vanligen använda standardavtal för byggbranschen i Sverige, Danmark och Norge. Vidare syftar uppsatsen till att utreda rättsföljderna för följdskador i respektive standardavtal och hur de olika standardavtalens riskfördelning är utformad. De nordiska länderna bygger på samma obligationsrättsliga ansats varför det var naturligt att jämföra liknande regler i Sverige, Danmark och Norge. I denna uppsats kommer jag således göra en komparativ undersökning med utgångspunkt i svenska AB 04, danska AB 92 och norska NS 8405. För att undersöka gällande rätt i Sverige, Danmark och Norge har en traditionell rättsdogmatisk metod använts. Vid jämförelsen av dessa resultat har en komparativ metod använts.

Standardavtalen är i alla länder en kompromissprodukt mellan marknadens parter och delar vissa av de otydlighetsproblem som finns i samband med tolkning. Felbegreppet i de olika avtalen är lika varandra: fel föreligger när arbetet inte är i det skick som är avtalat. Föreligger fel är avhjälpande den huvudsakliga felpåföljden. Även följdskadebegreppet i sig är likt mellan de olika länderna men de får olika konsekvenser. Begränsningen av kontraktssumman i AB 04, samtidigt som en sådan begränsning inte finns i AB 92 och NS 8405, torde innebära en markant lägre ersättning för skador i Sverige.

Ansvarsfördelningen i de genomgångna standardavtalen riktar ansvar till en skadevållare. Den part som lidit en skada ska därefter ersättas. Samtidigt finns det en avtalsfrihet som möjliggör för parterna att avtala om sitt ansvar i en given situation. De genomgångna standardavtalen kunde vara tydligare i sina villkor för bedömningen av fel och dess påföljd. När dessutom dispositiv rätt beaktas vid tolkningen av entreprenadavtal blir dess tillämpning osäker. Vid tolkning av avtalen lägger de tre olika standardavtalet stor vikt vid den gemensamma partsavsikten. Hur stor inverkan dispositiv rätt har vid tolkningen av en tvist är inte helt klart.

Entreprenadrätten bygger i mångt och mycket på obligations- och skadeståndsrättsliga principer. Detta är gemensamt för entreprenadrätten i Sverige, Danmark och Norge. Det framgår av denna framställning att de olika ländernas regelverk delar stora likheter, men det är fortfarande långt ifrån enkelt att veta vilken bestämmelse som är tillämplig på en viss situation. (Less)
Abstract
The purpose of this essay is to deal with the primary contractual sanctions for construction errors in the most common standard agreements for the construction industry in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Furthermore, the paper aims at investigating the consequences for consequential damages in the various standard agreements and how the standard agreement's risk allocation is designed. In many respects, the Nordic countries share the same legal perspective, so it is natural to compare similar rules in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. In this essay, I will therefore make a comparison based on Swedish AB 04, Danish AB 92 and Norwegian NS 8405. To study current law in Sweden, Denmark and Norway, a traditional legal-judicial method has been used. A... (More)
The purpose of this essay is to deal with the primary contractual sanctions for construction errors in the most common standard agreements for the construction industry in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Furthermore, the paper aims at investigating the consequences for consequential damages in the various standard agreements and how the standard agreement's risk allocation is designed. In many respects, the Nordic countries share the same legal perspective, so it is natural to compare similar rules in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. In this essay, I will therefore make a comparison based on Swedish AB 04, Danish AB 92 and Norwegian NS 8405. To study current law in Sweden, Denmark and Norway, a traditional legal-judicial method has been used. A comparative method has been used when comparing the various standard agreement provisions.

The standard agreements that are subject of this essay are all compromise products from the parties of the construction industry, and they share some of the ambiguity problems associated with interpretation of a contract. The term error in the different agreements is more or less the same: an error means that a job does not have the quality agreed between the parties. When there is an error, the main rule is that the contractor should correct the error. Likewise, the three countries' rules on consequential injuries are similar, but they have different consequences. The limitation of liability under the contract sum in AB 04, while such a limitation is not found in AB 92 and NS 8405, would imply a significantly lower compensation for injuries in Sweden.

Liability according to the standard agreement is directed against the person who caused injury. The party who suffered an injury shall then be replaced for its costs. At the same time, the parties have contractual freedom that allows responsibility to be distributed according to their will. The standard agreements examined in this paper could be clearer in their terms of assess-ment of errors and their sanctions. When dispositive law furthermore is considered when interpreting construction contracts, it may cause uncertainty between the parties. When interpreting a provision, the three different standard agreements place significant importance on the parties' intentions with the provision. The importance of dispositive law when the parties are to interpret an agreement or provision is not clear.

Construction contract law is based in many respects on principles of civil law and liability law. The same applies to the contract law both in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. According to this paper, the different countries' standard agreements are largely similar, but it is still far from easy to know which provision is applicable to a particular situation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Karlemark, Ian LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Construction law and consequential damage from a Nordic perspective
course
JURM02 20181
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
entreprenadrätt, avtalsrätt, civilrätt, fastighetsrätt, förmögenhetsrätt, komparativ rätt, försäkringsrätt, skadeståndsrätt
language
Swedish
id
8941090
date added to LUP
2018-06-08 13:22:09
date last changed
2018-06-08 13:22:09
@misc{8941090,
  abstract     = {The purpose of this essay is to deal with the primary contractual sanctions for construction errors in the most common standard agreements for the construction industry in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. Furthermore, the paper aims at investigating the consequences for consequential damages in the various standard agreements and how the standard agreement's risk allocation is designed. In many respects, the Nordic countries share the same legal perspective, so it is natural to compare similar rules in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. In this essay, I will therefore make a comparison based on Swedish AB 04, Danish AB 92 and Norwegian NS 8405. To study current law in Sweden, Denmark and Norway, a traditional legal-judicial method has been used. A comparative method has been used when comparing the various standard agreement provisions.

The standard agreements that are subject of this essay are all compromise products from the parties of the construction industry, and they share some of the ambiguity problems associated with interpretation of a contract. The term error in the different agreements is more or less the same: an error means that a job does not have the quality agreed between the parties. When there is an error, the main rule is that the contractor should correct the error. Likewise, the three countries' rules on consequential injuries are similar, but they have different consequences. The limitation of liability under the contract sum in AB 04, while such a limitation is not found in AB 92 and NS 8405, would imply a significantly lower compensation for injuries in Sweden.

Liability according to the standard agreement is directed against the person who caused injury. The party who suffered an injury shall then be replaced for its costs. At the same time, the parties have contractual freedom that allows responsibility to be distributed according to their will. The standard agreements examined in this paper could be clearer in their terms of assess-ment of errors and their sanctions. When dispositive law furthermore is considered when interpreting construction contracts, it may cause uncertainty between the parties. When interpreting a provision, the three different standard agreements place significant importance on the parties' intentions with the provision. The importance of dispositive law when the parties are to interpret an agreement or provision is not clear.

Construction contract law is based in many respects on principles of civil law and liability law. The same applies to the contract law both in Sweden, Denmark and Norway. According to this paper, the different countries' standard agreements are largely similar, but it is still far from easy to know which provision is applicable to a particular situation.},
  author       = {Karlemark, Ian},
  keyword      = {entreprenadrätt,avtalsrätt,civilrätt,fastighetsrätt,förmögenhetsrätt,komparativ rätt,försäkringsrätt,skadeståndsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Entreprenadrättsliga felpåföljder och följdskador i ett nordiskt perspektiv},
  year         = {2018},
}