Tolkning av entreprenadavtal i Högsta domstolen och underrätter - Förekommer en särskild tolkningsmetod för entreprenadavtal?
(2022) JURM02 20222Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Entreprenadavtal avser i allmänhet omfattande och långvariga arbeten som inbegriper flera olika parter. Det är relativt vanligt förekommande att parterna har olika åsikt gällande hur ett specifikt avtalsvillkor ska tolkas. Det finns ingen entreprenadrättslig lagstiftning. Företrädare för BKK, Byggandets Kontraktskommitté, har framförhandlat standardkontrakt. Standardkontrakten har en stark ställning inom bygg-och anläggningsindustrin.
Tvister på entreprenadrättens område har historiskt sett främst prövats genom skiljeförfaranden. De senaste åren har antalet tvister som prövats i allmän domstol emellertid ökat. HD har, under det senaste decenniet, meddelat ett antal prejudikat som behandlar tolkningen av standardkontrakt på... (More) - Entreprenadavtal avser i allmänhet omfattande och långvariga arbeten som inbegriper flera olika parter. Det är relativt vanligt förekommande att parterna har olika åsikt gällande hur ett specifikt avtalsvillkor ska tolkas. Det finns ingen entreprenadrättslig lagstiftning. Företrädare för BKK, Byggandets Kontraktskommitté, har framförhandlat standardkontrakt. Standardkontrakten har en stark ställning inom bygg-och anläggningsindustrin.
Tvister på entreprenadrättens område har historiskt sett främst prövats genom skiljeförfaranden. De senaste åren har antalet tvister som prövats i allmän domstol emellertid ökat. HD har, under det senaste decenniet, meddelat ett antal prejudikat som behandlar tolkningen av standardkontrakt på entreprenadrättens område. De tolkningsprinciper som HD lyfter fram skiljer sig från den tolkning som traditionellt gjorts inom ramen för skiljeförfaranden.
Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka hur HD:s prejudikat gällande tolkningen av entreprenadavtal ska förstås. För att uppnå detta syfte redogörs för HD:s prejudikat gällande tolkningen av entreprenadavtal. Utifrån dessa avgöranden utkristalliseras vissa tolkningsprinciper. De principiella uttalandena som HD gör gällande avtalstolkning av entreprenadavtal kan uppfattas på olika sätt. Å ena sidan kan de principiella uttalandena uppfattas som att HD fastslagit en ”steg-för-steg” –metod för tolkning av entreprenadavtal. Å andra sidan kan de principiella uttalandena, enligt min mening, uppfattas som generella beskrivningar av hur tolkningen av standardavtal kan gå till.
För att utröna vilket genomslag HD:s tolkningsmodell för entreprenadavtal har fått i underrätter, refereras och analyseras ett antal underrättsavgöranden. Härvid undersöks dels vilka principiella uttalanden underrätterna gör gällande tolkningen av entreprenadavtal, dels hur underrätterna går till väga vid den materiella bedömningen.
I uppsatsen nås slutsatsen att de principiella uttalanden som HD gjort inte ska tolkas som att HD utarbetat en ”steg-för-steg”-metod. Vid granskning av de materiella bedömningarna i underrätterna framgår tydligt att de olika tolkningsfaktorerna och den dispositiva rätten beaktas inom ramen för en helhetsbedömning. I de analyserade underrättsavgörandena används tolkningsfaktorerna generellt sett som argument för att legitimera ett tolkningsresultat. De principiella uttalandena bör, i enlighet med argumentationen i uppsatsen, betraktas som generella beskrivningar av hur tolkningen av entreprenadavtal kan gå till. (Less) - Abstract
- Construction contracts generally refer to extensive and long-term projects involving several different parties. It is relatively common for the parties to have different opinions regarding how a specific contractual term should be interpreted. There is no construction contract law in the area. Hereby representatives of the BKK, the Construction Contracts Committee, have negotiated standard contracts. The standard contracts have a strong position within the construction industry.
Disputes in the area of construction contract law have historically been tried primarily through arbitration. In recent years, however, the number of disputes tried in general court has increased. The supreme court has, during the last decade, announced a... (More) - Construction contracts generally refer to extensive and long-term projects involving several different parties. It is relatively common for the parties to have different opinions regarding how a specific contractual term should be interpreted. There is no construction contract law in the area. Hereby representatives of the BKK, the Construction Contracts Committee, have negotiated standard contracts. The standard contracts have a strong position within the construction industry.
Disputes in the area of construction contract law have historically been tried primarily through arbitration. In recent years, however, the number of disputes tried in general court has increased. The supreme court has, during the last decade, announced a number of precedents that deal with how the inter-pretation of standard contracts in the field of construction law should be done. The principles of interpretation highlighted by the supreme court differ from the interpretation that traditionally has been made within the context of arbitration proceedings.
The purpose of this essay is to examine how the precedents of the supreme court regarding the interpretation of construction contracts should be understood. To achieve this purpose, the precedents of the supreme court regarding the interpretation of construction contracts are examined. Based on these rulings, certain principles for contractual interpretation of construction contracts take shape. The statements of principle that the supreme court makes regarding contractual interpretation of construction contracts can be understood in different ways. On the one hand, the statements of principle can be perceived as the supreme court establishing a “step-by-step”-method. On the other hand, the statements of principle can, in my opinion, be understood as general descriptions of how the interpretation of construction contracts could be done.
To find out how precedents of the supreme court regarding the interpretation of construction contracts should be understood, a number of lower court decisions are analyzed. In doing so it is examined which statements of principle the lower courts make regarding the interpretation of construction contracts. It is also examined how the lower courts proceed with their material assessment. Based on the examination of lower court judgements, it can be stated that the statements of principles made by the supreme court should not be interpreted as the supreme court having developed a “step-by-step”-method for interpreting construction contracts. When examining the material assessments in the lower courts, it is clear that the various interpretive factors are taken into account in an overall assessment. In the examined lower court judgements, the interpretation factors are generally used as arguments to legitimize the result of the interpretation. The statements of principle should be considered, in accordance with the argumentation in the essay, as general descriptions of how construction contracts can be interpreted. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9104646
- author
- Sandvall, Karin LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Interpretation of construction contracts in the supreme court and lower courts - The existence of a special interpretation method for construction contracts
- course
- JURM02 20222
- year
- 2022
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Avtalsrätt, Entreprenadrätt, Avtalstolkning, Prejudikatlära, Tolkning, Entreprenadavtal
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9104646
- date added to LUP
- 2023-01-24 09:13:28
- date last changed
- 2023-01-24 09:13:28
@misc{9104646,
abstract = {{Construction contracts generally refer to extensive and long-term projects involving several different parties. It is relatively common for the parties to have different opinions regarding how a specific contractual term should be interpreted. There is no construction contract law in the area. Hereby representatives of the BKK, the Construction Contracts Committee, have negotiated standard contracts. The standard contracts have a strong position within the construction industry.
Disputes in the area of construction contract law have historically been tried primarily through arbitration. In recent years, however, the number of disputes tried in general court has increased. The supreme court has, during the last decade, announced a number of precedents that deal with how the inter-pretation of standard contracts in the field of construction law should be done. The principles of interpretation highlighted by the supreme court differ from the interpretation that traditionally has been made within the context of arbitration proceedings.
The purpose of this essay is to examine how the precedents of the supreme court regarding the interpretation of construction contracts should be understood. To achieve this purpose, the precedents of the supreme court regarding the interpretation of construction contracts are examined. Based on these rulings, certain principles for contractual interpretation of construction contracts take shape. The statements of principle that the supreme court makes regarding contractual interpretation of construction contracts can be understood in different ways. On the one hand, the statements of principle can be perceived as the supreme court establishing a “step-by-step”-method. On the other hand, the statements of principle can, in my opinion, be understood as general descriptions of how the interpretation of construction contracts could be done.
To find out how precedents of the supreme court regarding the interpretation of construction contracts should be understood, a number of lower court decisions are analyzed. In doing so it is examined which statements of principle the lower courts make regarding the interpretation of construction contracts. It is also examined how the lower courts proceed with their material assessment. Based on the examination of lower court judgements, it can be stated that the statements of principles made by the supreme court should not be interpreted as the supreme court having developed a “step-by-step”-method for interpreting construction contracts. When examining the material assessments in the lower courts, it is clear that the various interpretive factors are taken into account in an overall assessment. In the examined lower court judgements, the interpretation factors are generally used as arguments to legitimize the result of the interpretation. The statements of principle should be considered, in accordance with the argumentation in the essay, as general descriptions of how construction contracts can be interpreted.}},
author = {{Sandvall, Karin}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Tolkning av entreprenadavtal i Högsta domstolen och underrätter - Förekommer en särskild tolkningsmetod för entreprenadavtal?}},
year = {{2022}},
}