Obotligt oskäliga avtalsvillkor - En studie om principiella ställningstaganden i rättspraxis beträffande särskilda avtalsklausultyper i ljuset av 36 § avtalslagen
(2022) LAGF03 20221Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I samband med framarbetandet av 36 § avtalslagen uttrycktes olika uppfattningar vad beträffar hur domstolarnas avgöranden bäst bör utformas för att främja vägledning och förutsägbarhet i en annars obestämd generalklausul. Principiellt med möjlighet att stämpla villkor som oskäliga i sig framfördes i lagmotiven. Kausistiskt, baserat på omständigheterna i det enskilda fallet, menade flertalet remissinstanser, inklusive Lagrådet.
Uppsatsen ämnar utreda vilket synsätt som är förhärskande enligt rådande rättsläge och därpå hur avtalsvillkor som innebär en väsentlig rubbning i parternas sinsemellan skyldigheter och rättigheter, ska bedömas – i varje enskilt fall, eller förklaras oskäliga på ett generellt plan.
Utredningen tar avstamp i den... (More) - I samband med framarbetandet av 36 § avtalslagen uttrycktes olika uppfattningar vad beträffar hur domstolarnas avgöranden bäst bör utformas för att främja vägledning och förutsägbarhet i en annars obestämd generalklausul. Principiellt med möjlighet att stämpla villkor som oskäliga i sig framfördes i lagmotiven. Kausistiskt, baserat på omständigheterna i det enskilda fallet, menade flertalet remissinstanser, inklusive Lagrådet.
Uppsatsen ämnar utreda vilket synsätt som är förhärskande enligt rådande rättsläge och därpå hur avtalsvillkor som innebär en väsentlig rubbning i parternas sinsemellan skyldigheter och rättigheter, ska bedömas – i varje enskilt fall, eller förklaras oskäliga på ett generellt plan.
Utredningen tar avstamp i den rättsdogmatiska metoden. Erkända rättskällor har studerats och involverats i rekonstrueringsprocessen. Naturligen har stort utrymme tillägnats lagmotiven och rättspraxis.
Uppsatsen visar på obenägenhet i rättspraxis att stämpla vissa villkor som obotligt oskäliga. Men helt saknas inte principiella ställningstaganden i övrigt. Rättspraxis har tillfört rättsläget principiellt viktiga avgöranden. Inte minst klargjordes i NJA 2017 s. 113 att ansvarsbegränsning som omvandlar konsumentens principiella rätt till påföljd till en formalitet utan praktiskt värde är oskäligt i sig. Sammantaget har rättspraxis likväl anklagats för att tillmäta situationsunika omständigheter alltför stor vikt. Lagmotivens ambitioner om principiellt präglade avgöranden har såtillvida ej till fullo fått genomslag.
Vidare åskådliggörs problem med en renodlat binär tillämpning av principorienterad regel. Användningen i rättspraxis av formuleringarna ”oskäligt i sig”, ”oskäligt i och för sig”, ”generellt oskäligt” visar sig därtill inte helt lyckat. (Less) - Abstract
- In connection with the preparation of section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act, different views were expressed as to how the courts' decisions should best be formulated in order to promote guidance and hence predictability in an otherwise indefinite general clause. Principally designed with the possibility of stamping contract terms as unreasonable in itself, it was argued in the law motives. Based on every case with its unique set of circumstances the some referral bodies, including the Law Council argued.
The thesis intends to investigate which approach is accurate according to the prevailing legal situation and then how contract terms that entail a significant disruption in the parties' mutual obligations and rights, should be assessed... (More) - In connection with the preparation of section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act, different views were expressed as to how the courts' decisions should best be formulated in order to promote guidance and hence predictability in an otherwise indefinite general clause. Principally designed with the possibility of stamping contract terms as unreasonable in itself, it was argued in the law motives. Based on every case with its unique set of circumstances the some referral bodies, including the Law Council argued.
The thesis intends to investigate which approach is accurate according to the prevailing legal situation and then how contract terms that entail a significant disruption in the parties' mutual obligations and rights, should be assessed - in each individual case, or if they can be declared unreasonable on a general level.
Based on the legal dogmatic method, recognized sources of law have been studied and involved in the reconstruction process of the legal system. Naturally, much space has been devoted to legal motives and case law.
The essay showcases a reluctance in case law to label certain contract terms as incurably unreasonable. Yet, there is no complete lack of principled positions in general. The case law has added important decisions to the legal matter in principle. Not least, it was clarified in NJA 2017 s. 113 that contract terms stipulating limitation of liability that transforms the consumer's principled right to sanction into a formality without practical value is unreasonable in itself.
Overall, however, case law has been accused of attaching too much importance to situational circumstances, why the ambitions of the law motives have so far not fully been accomplished
In addition, problems with a purely binary application of principle-oriented rule are illustrated. The use of the sentences “unreasonable in itself” and “generally unreasonable” is not entirely accurate in swedish civil law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9081044
- author
- Fridén, Pontus LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Avtalsrätt, 36 § avtalslagen, 36 § AvtL, Avtalsvillkor oskäliga i sig, Avtalsvillkor oskäliga i och för sig, Generellt oskäliga avtalsvillkor, Klausulinriktad bedömning, Oskäligt avtalsvillkor.
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9081044
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-28 09:27:21
- date last changed
- 2022-06-28 09:27:21
@misc{9081044, abstract = {{In connection with the preparation of section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act, different views were expressed as to how the courts' decisions should best be formulated in order to promote guidance and hence predictability in an otherwise indefinite general clause. Principally designed with the possibility of stamping contract terms as unreasonable in itself, it was argued in the law motives. Based on every case with its unique set of circumstances the some referral bodies, including the Law Council argued. The thesis intends to investigate which approach is accurate according to the prevailing legal situation and then how contract terms that entail a significant disruption in the parties' mutual obligations and rights, should be assessed - in each individual case, or if they can be declared unreasonable on a general level. Based on the legal dogmatic method, recognized sources of law have been studied and involved in the reconstruction process of the legal system. Naturally, much space has been devoted to legal motives and case law. The essay showcases a reluctance in case law to label certain contract terms as incurably unreasonable. Yet, there is no complete lack of principled positions in general. The case law has added important decisions to the legal matter in principle. Not least, it was clarified in NJA 2017 s. 113 that contract terms stipulating limitation of liability that transforms the consumer's principled right to sanction into a formality without practical value is unreasonable in itself. Overall, however, case law has been accused of attaching too much importance to situational circumstances, why the ambitions of the law motives have so far not fully been accomplished In addition, problems with a purely binary application of principle-oriented rule are illustrated. The use of the sentences “unreasonable in itself” and “generally unreasonable” is not entirely accurate in swedish civil law.}}, author = {{Fridén, Pontus}}, language = {{swe}}, note = {{Student Paper}}, title = {{Obotligt oskäliga avtalsvillkor - En studie om principiella ställningstaganden i rättspraxis beträffande särskilda avtalsklausultyper i ljuset av 36 § avtalslagen}}, year = {{2022}}, }