Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Är det fel eller är det fel på felbegreppet? Det är det garanterat! Om innebörden av entreprenörens ansvar för fel under garantitiden i AB 04 kap. 5 § 5

Knutsson Lesinski, Caroline LU (2022) JURM02 20221
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
I svensk rätt saknas lagstiftning som reglerar kommersiella entreprenadavtal. Istället regleras sådana avtal genom särskilda standardavtal som utarbetats av branschföreträdare under flera decennier. AB 04 är ett av de mest centrala standardavtalen på den kommersiella entreprenadrättens område.
Syftet med denna framställning är att utreda innebörden av garantiansvaret i AB 04 kap. 5 § 5. Enligt denna bestämmelse ansvarar entreprenören för fel som framträder under garantitid. Till bestämmelsen finns en lång kommentar som ska vara vägledande vid tillämpning och tolkning av bestämmelsen. Trots detta råder det olika uppfattning om vad garantiansvaret i AB 04 innebär. Frågan har diskuterats i den entreprenadrättsliga litteraturen och även... (More)
I svensk rätt saknas lagstiftning som reglerar kommersiella entreprenadavtal. Istället regleras sådana avtal genom särskilda standardavtal som utarbetats av branschföreträdare under flera decennier. AB 04 är ett av de mest centrala standardavtalen på den kommersiella entreprenadrättens område.
Syftet med denna framställning är att utreda innebörden av garantiansvaret i AB 04 kap. 5 § 5. Enligt denna bestämmelse ansvarar entreprenören för fel som framträder under garantitid. Till bestämmelsen finns en lång kommentar som ska vara vägledande vid tillämpning och tolkning av bestämmelsen. Trots detta råder det olika uppfattning om vad garantiansvaret i AB 04 innebär. Frågan har diskuterats i den entreprenadrättsliga litteraturen och även varit föremål för domstolsprövning. Det saknas dock prejudikat och den underrättspraxis som finns är spretig. Även uppfattningarna i den entreprenadrättsliga litteraturen går isär. Garantiansvaret i AB 04 omnämns ofta som ett presumtionsansvar som medför en omkastad bevisbörda. Det råder dock inte enighet om vad den omkastade bevisbördan faktiskt avser.
HD har i praxis fastslagit en metod för tolkning av AB-avtalen som innebär att AB-avtalen ska tolkas utifrån bestämmelsernas ordalydelse, systematiken och de övriga villkoren i avtalen samt i ljuset av den dispositiva entreprenadrätten. Avslutningsvis ska en övergripande rimlighetsbedömning göras.
I uppsatsen konstateras att rättsläget är oklart och för att utreda garantiansvarets innebörd görs en tolkning i enlighet med den tolkningsmetod som fastslagits av HD. Vid tolkning av AB-avtalen i ljuset av dispositiv rätt är KöpL av särskilt intresse. Även analogier till KtjL kan göras i den mån de ger uttryck för allmänna obligationsrättsliga principer.
Utgångspunkten enligt dispositiv rätt är att köparen/konsumenten har bevisbördan för att det föreligger ett fel efter riskövergången/uppdragets avslutande. En garanti kan dock medföra en presumtion som innebär en omkastad bevisbörda avseende bevisbördan för orsaken till avvikelsen. En Alméngaranti innebär just en sådan presumtion.
I uppsatsen förespråkas en tolkning om att garantiansvaret i AB 04 ska innebära en garanti om avsaknad av ursprungliga fel, motsvarande en Alméngaranti i den dispositiva rätten. För att ett fel ska omfattas av garantiansvaret måste det vara fråga om ett ursprungligt, dolt fel som framträder (visar sig) under garantitiden.
Det konstateras vidare att felbegreppet i AB 04 skiljer sig från felbegreppet i den dispositiva rätten. Detta måste beaktas vid placeringen av bevisbördan för huruvida det föreligger ett fel under garantitiden. Vid prövningen av entreprenörens ansvar för fel under garantitiden enligt AB 04 ska varken beställaren eller entreprenören åläggas bevisbördan för att det föreligger ett fel i AB 04:s mening. Istället ska beställaren, i likhet med vad som gäller i den dispositiva rätten, åläggas bevisbördan för att det föreligger en resultatavvikelse i förhållande till vad som följer av parternas avtal. Om beställaren fullgör sin bevisbörda utlöses en presumtion som innebär en omkastad bevisbörda avseende orsaken till resultatavvikelsen. Entreprenören har då bevisbördan för att resultatavvikelsen inte beror på ett ursprungligt fel. Entreprenören kan fullgöra sin bevisbörda genom att visa att entreprenaden utförts kontraktsenligt eller göra sannolikt att det påtalade felet beror på omständigheter som är hänförliga till beställaren. (Less)
Abstract
There is no legislation regulating construction contracts between commercial parties in Sweden. Instead, these types of contracts are governed by special standard-form contracts that have been developed by industry representatives over several decades. AB 04 (General conditions of contract for building and civil engineering works and building services) has gained a central position in the field of commercial contract law.
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the meaning of the contractor’s liability for defects during the “guarantee period” according to the provision in AB 04 chapter 5 § 5. The provision states that the contractor shall be liable for defects which become apparent during the guarantee period. The provision in AB 04... (More)
There is no legislation regulating construction contracts between commercial parties in Sweden. Instead, these types of contracts are governed by special standard-form contracts that have been developed by industry representatives over several decades. AB 04 (General conditions of contract for building and civil engineering works and building services) has gained a central position in the field of commercial contract law.
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the meaning of the contractor’s liability for defects during the “guarantee period” according to the provision in AB 04 chapter 5 § 5. The provision states that the contractor shall be liable for defects which become apparent during the guarantee period. The provision in AB 04 chapter 5 § 5 is followed by a long comment that is intended to give guidance on the application and interpretation of the provision. Despite this, there are a number of different opinions regarding what the guarantee liability in AB 04 actually entails. The issue has been discussed in the legal literature concerning the construction contract law and has also been subject to judicial proceedings. Nevertheless, there is a lack of precedent, and the existing case law is scattered. The perceptions on the matter also diverge in the legal literature. The guarantee liability in AB 04 is often referred to as a presumptive liability which entails a reversed burden of proof. However, there is not a consensus concerning which burden of proof that actually is reversed.
According to case law from the Swedish Supreme Court the General conditions of contract, AB 04 and ABT 06, shall be interpreted in accordance with a certain method developed by the court. When interpreting the General conditions of contract, guidance can be obtained from the wording of the provisions, the systematics and the other provisions of the contract or from an interpretation in the light of non-mandatory legislation that would otherwise have been applied. Lastly, an overall fair assessment must be made.
In this thesis, it is proposed that the legal position is unclear and in order to examine the meaning of the guarantee liability the provision in AB 04 chapter 5 § 5 is interpreted in accordance with the method determined by the Swedish Supreme Court. When interpreting the General contract conditions in the light of the non-mandatory legislation the Swedish Sales of Goods Act is of particular interest. It is also possible to make analogies to the Swedish Consumer Service Act when the provisions are an expression of general principles of contract law.
Under the Sales of Goods Act and the Consumer Service Act the buyer/consumer bears the burden of proof that there is a defect after the transfer of risk. A guarantee may, however, entail a reversed burden of proof regarding the cause of the defect due to a presumption. A guarantee of absence of defects in nuce (sw. Alméngaranti) entails a presumption of this kind.
In this thesis, it is proposed that the guarantee liability in AB 04 constitutes a guarantee of this kind. In order for a defect to be covered by the guarantee liability it must be a defect in nuce that is latent which appears during the guarantee period.
It is also proposed that the definition of a defect in AB 04 differs from the legal concept of a defect in the Sales of Goods Act and the Consumer Service Act. This must be considered when placing the burden of proof regarding the question if there is an actual defect during the guarantee period. When assessing the contractor's responsibility for defects during the guarantee period according to AB 04, neither the employer nor the contractor shall be assigned the burden of proof regarding the question if there is an actual defect according to the definition of a defect in AB 04. Instead, the employer shall bear the burden of proof that there actually is a deviation in the result in relation to what constitutes a contractual result according to the contract. If the employer fulfils this burden of proof the contractor bears the burden of proof that the deviation is not caused by a defect in nuce. This is the result of a reversed burden of proof due to a presumption. In order to fulfil the burden of proof the contractor can either prove that the total works have been executed in accordance with the contract or show probability that the alleged defect is due to incorrect planning and design, neglect, abnormal use or other cause attributable to the employer. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Knutsson Lesinski, Caroline LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Is it a defect or is the defect definition defect? It is guaranteed! The meaning of the contractors guarantee liability during the guarantee period according to AB 04 chapter 5 § 5
course
JURM02 20221
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Avtalsrätt, Förmögenhetsrätt, Entreprenadrätt
language
Swedish
id
9101362
date added to LUP
2023-01-03 15:52:03
date last changed
2023-01-03 15:52:03
@misc{9101362,
  abstract     = {{There is no legislation regulating construction contracts between commercial parties in Sweden. Instead, these types of contracts are governed by special standard-form contracts that have been developed by industry representatives over several decades. AB 04 (General conditions of contract for building and civil engineering works and building services) has gained a central position in the field of commercial contract law.
The purpose of this thesis is to examine the meaning of the contractor’s liability for defects during the “guarantee period” according to the provision in AB 04 chapter 5 § 5. The provision states that the contractor shall be liable for defects which become apparent during the guarantee period. The provision in AB 04 chapter 5 § 5 is followed by a long comment that is intended to give guidance on the application and interpretation of the provision. Despite this, there are a number of different opinions regarding what the guarantee liability in AB 04 actually entails. The issue has been discussed in the legal literature concerning the construction contract law and has also been subject to judicial proceedings. Nevertheless, there is a lack of precedent, and the existing case law is scattered. The perceptions on the matter also diverge in the legal literature. The guarantee liability in AB 04 is often referred to as a presumptive liability which entails a reversed burden of proof. However, there is not a consensus concerning which burden of proof that actually is reversed. 
According to case law from the Swedish Supreme Court the General conditions of contract, AB 04 and ABT 06, shall be interpreted in accordance with a certain method developed by the court. When interpreting the General conditions of contract, guidance can be obtained from the wording of the provisions, the systematics and the other provisions of the contract or from an interpretation in the light of non-mandatory legislation that would otherwise have been applied. Lastly, an overall fair assessment must be made. 
In this thesis, it is proposed that the legal position is unclear and in order to examine the meaning of the guarantee liability the provision in AB 04 chapter 5 § 5 is interpreted in accordance with the method determined by the Swedish Supreme Court. When interpreting the General contract conditions in the light of the non-mandatory legislation the Swedish Sales of Goods Act is of particular interest. It is also possible to make analogies to the Swedish Consumer Service Act when the provisions are an expression of general principles of contract law. 
Under the Sales of Goods Act and the Consumer Service Act the buyer/consumer bears the burden of proof that there is a defect after the transfer of risk. A guarantee may, however, entail a reversed burden of proof regarding the cause of the defect due to a presumption. A guarantee of absence of defects in nuce (sw. Alméngaranti) entails a presumption of this kind.
In this thesis, it is proposed that the guarantee liability in AB 04 constitutes a guarantee of this kind. In order for a defect to be covered by the guarantee liability it must be a defect in nuce that is latent which appears during the guarantee period. 
It is also proposed that the definition of a defect in AB 04 differs from the legal concept of a defect in the Sales of Goods Act and the Consumer Service Act. This must be considered when placing the burden of proof regarding the question if there is an actual defect during the guarantee period. When assessing the contractor's responsibility for defects during the guarantee period according to AB 04, neither the employer nor the contractor shall be assigned the burden of proof regarding the question if there is an actual defect according to the definition of a defect in AB 04. Instead, the employer shall bear the burden of proof that there actually is a deviation in the result in relation to what constitutes a contractual result according to the contract. If the employer fulfils this burden of proof the contractor bears the burden of proof that the deviation is not caused by a defect in nuce. This is the result of a reversed burden of proof due to a presumption. In order to fulfil the burden of proof the contractor can either prove that the total works have been executed in accordance with the contract or show probability that the alleged defect is due to incorrect planning and design, neglect, abnormal use or other cause attributable to the employer.}},
  author       = {{Knutsson Lesinski, Caroline}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Är det fel eller är det fel på felbegreppet? Det är det garanterat! Om innebörden av entreprenörens ansvar för fel under garantitiden i AB 04 kap. 5 § 5}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}