36 § Avtalslagen, en räddare i nöden eller en ekonomisk skurk? - En kritisk granskning av generalklausulen med fokus på ansvarsbegränsningar
(2018) LAGF03 20182Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Lagstiftarens uppfattning beträffande avtal har under lång tid präglats av principen om avtalsfrihet och att avtal ska hållas. Därmed har det ansetts vara upp till parterna själva att tillvarata sina egna intressen. Avtalslagen är allmänt hållen i enlighet med lagstiftarens syfte, vilket har resulterat i att rättstillämpningen inte sällan fått hantera och fylla i de luckor som förblivit oreglerade.
En av de paragrafer som beskurit avtalsfriheten är 36 § Avtalslagen om jämkning och ogiltighet på grund av oskälighet. Däri stadgas att ett avtal eller villkor kan jämkas eller lämnas utan avseende om villkoret är oskäligt med hänsyn till avtalets innehåll, omständigheterna vid avtalets tillkomst, senare inträffade förhållanden och... (More) - Lagstiftarens uppfattning beträffande avtal har under lång tid präglats av principen om avtalsfrihet och att avtal ska hållas. Därmed har det ansetts vara upp till parterna själva att tillvarata sina egna intressen. Avtalslagen är allmänt hållen i enlighet med lagstiftarens syfte, vilket har resulterat i att rättstillämpningen inte sällan fått hantera och fylla i de luckor som förblivit oreglerade.
En av de paragrafer som beskurit avtalsfriheten är 36 § Avtalslagen om jämkning och ogiltighet på grund av oskälighet. Däri stadgas att ett avtal eller villkor kan jämkas eller lämnas utan avseende om villkoret är oskäligt med hänsyn till avtalets innehåll, omständigheterna vid avtalets tillkomst, senare inträffade förhållanden och omständigheterna i övrigt. Med tanke på att 36 § omfattar i princip alla typer av oskäliga avtalsvillkor är dess problematik också den allmänna utformningen och bristen på förutsebarhet vid tvister där ogiltighet eller jämkning på grund av oskälighet åberopas. I uppsatsen redogörs därför för bakgrunden kring införandet av paragrafen samt gällande rätt med fokus på friskrivningsklausuler såsom ansvarsbegränsningar. Det görs dels genom att analysera ett urval av rättsfall där ansvarsbegränsningar behandlats, dels genom att ställa prejudikat i ljuset av rättsekonomiska- och förutsebarhetsargument.
Ett villkors skälighet är högst beroende av omständigheterna i det enskilda fallet. Det går följaktligen inte att direkt fastställa om ett villkor i form av en ansvarsbegränsning är att anse som oskälig. Med beaktande av den utveckling som skett i praxis kan emellertid vissa mönster utvinnas. Vad gäller ansvarsbegränsningar tycks rättsläget under senare år ändrats något. Numera tenderar domstolen vara mer flexibel i jämförelse med hur det resonerats i tidigare domar. Domstolarna har gått ifrån den klassiska synen att friskrivningar inte kan göras gällande vid grov vårdslöshet till att istället använda sig av 36 § och väga in andra faktorer i skälighetsbedömningen, bland annat hur avtalsparten agerat, dess klandervärdhet, möjlighet till försäkringsskydd samt om parten innehar en underlägsen ställning eller inte. (Less) - Abstract
- The legislator’s view concerning agreements has long been characterized by the principle of contractual freedom and that agreements must be kept. Thus, it has been considered up to the parties themselves to take advantage of their own interests. Even if the law of contract is generally in accordance with the purpose of the legislature, it has resulted in the application of law not often being able to handle and fill in the gaps that have remained unregulated.
One of the paragraphs that has edited the contractual freedom, is section 36 of the Act on Adjustment and Invalidity on the grounds of unfairness. It states that an agreement or condition can be adjusted or left without regard to whether the condition is unreasonable regarding the... (More) - The legislator’s view concerning agreements has long been characterized by the principle of contractual freedom and that agreements must be kept. Thus, it has been considered up to the parties themselves to take advantage of their own interests. Even if the law of contract is generally in accordance with the purpose of the legislature, it has resulted in the application of law not often being able to handle and fill in the gaps that have remained unregulated.
One of the paragraphs that has edited the contractual freedom, is section 36 of the Act on Adjustment and Invalidity on the grounds of unfairness. It states that an agreement or condition can be adjusted or left without regard to whether the condition is unreasonable regarding the content of the contract, the circumstances at the time of the contract, later circumstances and the circumstances in general. The fact that section 36 covers, in essence, all types of unfair contract terms, its problems are also the general design and the lack of predictability in disputes where invalidity adjustment due to unfairness is invoked. The essay therefore explains the background to the introduction of the paragraph and the applicable law, with a focus on disclaimer clauses such as limitations of liability. This is done partly by analyzing a selection of legal cases where liability restrictions have been dealt with, and partly by setting precedents in the light of legal-economic and predictability arguments.
Fairness of a condition is highly dependent on the circumstances of the individual case. Consequently, it is not possible to determine directly whether a condition in the form of a liability concept is to be regarded as unfair. However, taking into account the developments that have taken place in practice, some guidelines can be extracted. Regarding limitations on liability, the legal situation in recent years seems to have slightly changed. Nowadays, the court tends to be more flexible in comparison with how it was previously reasoned. One has abandoned the more traditional view, meaning that disclaimers cannot be made in the case of gross negligence. Section 36 is being used instead and takes other circumstances into account, such as the innocence assessment, including how the contracting party acted, its blameworthiness, the possibility of insurance coverage and whether the party holds an inferior position or not. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8965892
- author
- Sabogal Roldan, Andrea LU
- supervisor
-
- Per Nilsén LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20182
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Avtalsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8965892
- date added to LUP
- 2019-03-17 14:17:53
- date last changed
- 2019-03-17 14:17:53
@misc{8965892,
abstract = {{The legislator’s view concerning agreements has long been characterized by the principle of contractual freedom and that agreements must be kept. Thus, it has been considered up to the parties themselves to take advantage of their own interests. Even if the law of contract is generally in accordance with the purpose of the legislature, it has resulted in the application of law not often being able to handle and fill in the gaps that have remained unregulated.
One of the paragraphs that has edited the contractual freedom, is section 36 of the Act on Adjustment and Invalidity on the grounds of unfairness. It states that an agreement or condition can be adjusted or left without regard to whether the condition is unreasonable regarding the content of the contract, the circumstances at the time of the contract, later circumstances and the circumstances in general. The fact that section 36 covers, in essence, all types of unfair contract terms, its problems are also the general design and the lack of predictability in disputes where invalidity adjustment due to unfairness is invoked. The essay therefore explains the background to the introduction of the paragraph and the applicable law, with a focus on disclaimer clauses such as limitations of liability. This is done partly by analyzing a selection of legal cases where liability restrictions have been dealt with, and partly by setting precedents in the light of legal-economic and predictability arguments.
Fairness of a condition is highly dependent on the circumstances of the individual case. Consequently, it is not possible to determine directly whether a condition in the form of a liability concept is to be regarded as unfair. However, taking into account the developments that have taken place in practice, some guidelines can be extracted. Regarding limitations on liability, the legal situation in recent years seems to have slightly changed. Nowadays, the court tends to be more flexible in comparison with how it was previously reasoned. One has abandoned the more traditional view, meaning that disclaimers cannot be made in the case of gross negligence. Section 36 is being used instead and takes other circumstances into account, such as the innocence assessment, including how the contracting party acted, its blameworthiness, the possibility of insurance coverage and whether the party holds an inferior position or not.}},
author = {{Sabogal Roldan, Andrea}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{36 § Avtalslagen, en räddare i nöden eller en ekonomisk skurk? - En kritisk granskning av generalklausulen med fokus på ansvarsbegränsningar}},
year = {{2018}},
}