Omsætningshensyn og mindreåriges manglende handleevne i en kreditretlig interessekonflikt: Hvordan afvejer den danske respektive den svenske gældsbrevslov kreditretlige omsætningshensyn og mindreåriges manglende handleevne?
(2022) LAGF03 20221Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Danish)
- Gældsbrevsloven er udviklet i et fællesnordisk samarbejde med en eksplicit ambition om at skabe en fælles gældsbrevslov. Alligevel viser analysen, at interessekollisionen mellem omsætningshen-syn på den ene side og mindreåriges manglende handleevne på den anden side, løses forskelligt i henholdsvis den danske og svenske gældsbrevslov §§ 14 og 19. Ifølge den danske gældsbrevs-lov, er det muligt at godtroserhverve et omsætningsgældsbrev, selvom overdrageren er mindre-årig. Ved anvendelse af den svenske gældsbrevslov, er en godtroserhvervelse derimod udelukket, hvis overdrageren er mindreårig. Den danske gældsbrevslov medgiver ligeledes betalingsekstink-tion, selvom betalingsmodtageren er mindreårig. Ifølge den svenske gældsbrevslov er... (More)
- Gældsbrevsloven er udviklet i et fællesnordisk samarbejde med en eksplicit ambition om at skabe en fælles gældsbrevslov. Alligevel viser analysen, at interessekollisionen mellem omsætningshen-syn på den ene side og mindreåriges manglende handleevne på den anden side, løses forskelligt i henholdsvis den danske og svenske gældsbrevslov §§ 14 og 19. Ifølge den danske gældsbrevs-lov, er det muligt at godtroserhverve et omsætningsgældsbrev, selvom overdrageren er mindre-årig. Ved anvendelse af den svenske gældsbrevslov, er en godtroserhvervelse derimod udelukket, hvis overdrageren er mindreårig. Den danske gældsbrevslov medgiver ligeledes betalingsekstink-tion, selvom betalingsmodtageren er mindreårig. Ifølge den svenske gældsbrevslov er betalings-ekstinktion udelukket, hvis betalingsmodtageren er mindreårig, uagtet at skyldneren er i god tro, og uagtet at den mindreårige har gældsbrevet i hænde. Da disse forskelle, i det som skulle være en fællesnordisk gældsbrevslov, ikke er behandlet i den retsvidenskabelige litteratur, bidrager opgaven med en nyhedsværdi.
Med afsæt i en kombination af retsdogmatisk og komparativ metode undersøger jeg, hvordan den danske respektive den svenske lovgivning laver hensynsafvejningen mellem omsæt-ningsinteressen og mindreåriges manglende handleevne. Informationen anvendes til at analysere de grundlæggende ejendomsretlige principper, som anvendes i landenes forskellige løsninger af rettigheds – og hensynskollisionen. Undersøgelsen viser, at den danske gældsbrevslov lægger større vægt ved ekstinktionsprincippet, sammenlignet med den svenske gældsbrevslov. Forskel-len hænger sammen med landenes grundlæggende ejendomsretlige afvejninger. I dansk ret findes en pengeregel, som ikke findes i den svenske formueret. På den svenske side findes et formueret-ligt princip, som implicerer, at god tro ikke kan tillægges retlig betydning i forhold til statusfor-hold. At landenes regulering er differentierede på så grundlæggende punkter, gør lovene ganske forskellige, hvilket står i strid med ambitionen om en fællesnordisk gældsbrevslov. (Less) - Abstract
- The Danish and Swedish Promissory Notes Acts were developed in a joint Nordic cooperation with the explicit ambition to create a uniform legislation regarding promissory notes. Neverthe-less, the conflict between negotiability on the one hand and minors' legal incompetence on the other hand is resolved differently in the Danish and Swedish Promissory Notes Acts, Sections 14 and 19. Danish law states that when a promissory note payable to bearer has been transferred by the bearer, and has come into possession of the transferee, the new bearer shall be regarded as the rightful creditor. This is the case even if the transferor is a minor, unless the transferee was in bad faith. Swedish law, on the other hand, does not allow acquisitions made... (More)
- The Danish and Swedish Promissory Notes Acts were developed in a joint Nordic cooperation with the explicit ambition to create a uniform legislation regarding promissory notes. Neverthe-less, the conflict between negotiability on the one hand and minors' legal incompetence on the other hand is resolved differently in the Danish and Swedish Promissory Notes Acts, Sections 14 and 19. Danish law states that when a promissory note payable to bearer has been transferred by the bearer, and has come into possession of the transferee, the new bearer shall be regarded as the rightful creditor. This is the case even if the transferor is a minor, unless the transferee was in bad faith. Swedish law, on the other hand, does not allow acquisitions made in good faith if the transferor is a minor. Also, according to Danish law, payment under a promissory note payable to bearer will be valid, even when the creditor who receives the payment is a minor, unless the debtor is acting in bad faith. According to Swedish Law, payments to a minor cannot be valid, regardless of the debtor’s good faith. These differences, in what should have been a uniform leg-islation, have not been examined before in legal research. For that reason, this analysis is news-worthy.
The analysis is conducted with a comparative legal method, combined with a legal dog-matic method, focusing on the considerations that lie behind the legislation. The analysis shows that acquisitions made in good faith is possible to a greater extent in the Danish Promissory Notes Act, compared to the Swedish Promissory Notes Act. The difference is related to the countries' considerations with regard to fundamental property rights. In Denmark, there is a prin-ciple of property law called the money rule. The money rule does not exist in Swedish property law. On the Swedish side, there is a principle of property law, which implies that good faith can-not be given legal significance in relation to status matters. This principle does not exist in Danish law. The fact that the Danish and Swedish Promissory Notes Acts resolve this conflict between negotiability on the one hand and minors' legal incompetence on the other hand in different ways result in incompatible legislations. It can be argued that this is not in line with the ambition of a joint Nordic Promissory Notes Act. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9081257
- author
- Lovmand Hvid, Geske LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20221
- year
- 2022
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Förmögenhetsrätt, sakrätt, civilrätt
- language
- Danish
- id
- 9081257
- date added to LUP
- 2022-06-28 10:50:37
- date last changed
- 2022-06-28 10:50:37
@misc{9081257,
abstract = {{The Danish and Swedish Promissory Notes Acts were developed in a joint Nordic cooperation with the explicit ambition to create a uniform legislation regarding promissory notes. Neverthe-less, the conflict between negotiability on the one hand and minors' legal incompetence on the other hand is resolved differently in the Danish and Swedish Promissory Notes Acts, Sections 14 and 19. Danish law states that when a promissory note payable to bearer has been transferred by the bearer, and has come into possession of the transferee, the new bearer shall be regarded as the rightful creditor. This is the case even if the transferor is a minor, unless the transferee was in bad faith. Swedish law, on the other hand, does not allow acquisitions made in good faith if the transferor is a minor. Also, according to Danish law, payment under a promissory note payable to bearer will be valid, even when the creditor who receives the payment is a minor, unless the debtor is acting in bad faith. According to Swedish Law, payments to a minor cannot be valid, regardless of the debtor’s good faith. These differences, in what should have been a uniform leg-islation, have not been examined before in legal research. For that reason, this analysis is news-worthy.
The analysis is conducted with a comparative legal method, combined with a legal dog-matic method, focusing on the considerations that lie behind the legislation. The analysis shows that acquisitions made in good faith is possible to a greater extent in the Danish Promissory Notes Act, compared to the Swedish Promissory Notes Act. The difference is related to the countries' considerations with regard to fundamental property rights. In Denmark, there is a prin-ciple of property law called the money rule. The money rule does not exist in Swedish property law. On the Swedish side, there is a principle of property law, which implies that good faith can-not be given legal significance in relation to status matters. This principle does not exist in Danish law. The fact that the Danish and Swedish Promissory Notes Acts resolve this conflict between negotiability on the one hand and minors' legal incompetence on the other hand in different ways result in incompatible legislations. It can be argued that this is not in line with the ambition of a joint Nordic Promissory Notes Act.}},
author = {{Lovmand Hvid, Geske}},
language = {{dan}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Omsætningshensyn og mindreåriges manglende handleevne i en kreditretlig interessekonflikt: Hvordan afvejer den danske respektive den svenske gældsbrevslov kreditretlige omsætningshensyn og mindreåriges manglende handleevne?}},
year = {{2022}},
}