Hinder och lojalitetsplikt i AB 04
(2023) JURM02 20231Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Då särskild lagreglering saknas för entreprenadförhållanden har organisation-en Byggandets kontraktskommitté förhandlat fram för branschen anpassade standardavtal. Både beställar- och entreprenörsidan företräds vid avtalsarbetet. Avtalet AB 04 är det för branschen viktigaste och omfattar utförandeentrepre-nader.
Tidsaspekten är central eftersom förseningar kan innebära väsentliga kostna-der för både entreprenör och beställare. I avtalet ägnas ett kapitel åt tidsa-spekten där 4 kap 3 § reglerar hinder som kan ge entreprenören rätt till tidsför-längning. Bestämmelsen följs upp med en underrättelseskyldighet. Av föror-det till AB 04 framhävs vikten av en kontinuerlig kommunikation och sam-verkan där även den allmänna lojalitetsplikten... (More) - Då särskild lagreglering saknas för entreprenadförhållanden har organisation-en Byggandets kontraktskommitté förhandlat fram för branschen anpassade standardavtal. Både beställar- och entreprenörsidan företräds vid avtalsarbetet. Avtalet AB 04 är det för branschen viktigaste och omfattar utförandeentrepre-nader.
Tidsaspekten är central eftersom förseningar kan innebära väsentliga kostna-der för både entreprenör och beställare. I avtalet ägnas ett kapitel åt tidsa-spekten där 4 kap 3 § reglerar hinder som kan ge entreprenören rätt till tidsför-längning. Bestämmelsen följs upp med en underrättelseskyldighet. Av föror-det till AB 04 framhävs vikten av en kontinuerlig kommunikation och sam-verkan där även den allmänna lojalitetsplikten omnämns. Lojalitetsplikten har på senare år fått en starkare roll och har genom NJA 2021 s. 943 fått en själv-ständig betydelse. Syftet med uppsatsen är att redogöra för hur tidsförläng-ning på grund av hinder regleras av avtalet och om den allmänna lojalitetsplik-ten påverkar underrättelseskyldigheten. För att uppfylla uppsatsens syfte har en rättsdogmatisk metod använts.
4 kap 3 § reglerar utifrån fem punkter entreprenörens möjlighet att få tidsför-längning på grund av hinder. Den första punkten gäller omständigheter som beror på beställaren eller något förhållande på hans sida och är den enda punkt som även kan ge entreprenören rätt till ersättning. Innebörden av ”beror på” har genom NJA 2013 s. 271 klargjorts och innebär att ett orsakssamband måste ligga för handen. Rättsläget är däremot oklart beträffande hur bestäm-melsens ordalydelse i övrigt tillsammans med kommentaren ska tolkas. Ett avgörande från Svea hovrätt talar, i kombination med doktrin, för att bestäm-melsen ska läsas tillsammans med 5 kap 12 § och förstås på så sätt att bestäl-larens ansvar begränsas till en viss personkrets. För att berättigas tidsförläng-ning måste entreprenören utan dröjsmål underrätta om hinder enligt 4 kap 4 §. Underlåter entreprenören att underrätta förlorar han sin rätt att åberopa förhål-landet som grund för tidsförlängning. Bestämmelsen reglerar inte exklusivt de hinder som omfattas av 4 kap 3 § utan omfattar alla omständigheter som kan medföra rubbning för tidplan eller en försening av entreprenaden. Beställaren har också enligt denna bestämmelse en underrättelseskyldighet.
Lojalitetspliktens ställning har stärkts och gäller särskilt vid långvariga avtals-förhållanden som inbegriper både rättigheter och skyldigheter för parterna. Standardavtalet är i högre grad detaljreglerat än många andra kommersiella avtal och reglerar i synnerhet tidsaspekten och underrättelse härav. Eftersom underrättelseskyldigheten redan genom 4 kap 4 § är omfattande minimeras möjligheten för en överraskande påverkan av lojalitetsplikten vid tvist i allmän domstol. (Less) - Abstract
- Due to the lack of regulation regarding construction contract law in Sweden, the application of standard-form contracts is common. Negotiation between representatives from both parties has resulted in the contract AB 04 which is the most important contract of the industry.
A delayed contract is often associated with great expenses such as penalty or the loss of rental revenue. The fourth chapter of AB 04 regulates time exten-sion in case of an impediment and to it duty of notification. The importance of cooperation and communication is in the preface of AB 04 emphasized. The principle duty of loyalty is also referred to. The duty of loyalty has in recent years gained a stronger position, and can be referred to as an independent ba-sis... (More) - Due to the lack of regulation regarding construction contract law in Sweden, the application of standard-form contracts is common. Negotiation between representatives from both parties has resulted in the contract AB 04 which is the most important contract of the industry.
A delayed contract is often associated with great expenses such as penalty or the loss of rental revenue. The fourth chapter of AB 04 regulates time exten-sion in case of an impediment and to it duty of notification. The importance of cooperation and communication is in the preface of AB 04 emphasized. The principle duty of loyalty is also referred to. The duty of loyalty has in recent years gained a stronger position, and can be referred to as an independent ba-sis which is shown by the ruling of the Swedish Supreme Court in NJA 2021 s. 943. The aim of this essay is to describe the regulation of AB 04 regarding time extension in case of an impediment and if the duty of loyalty could affect the parties duty of notification. A legal dogmatic method is used to examine the legal matter and meet the aims of this essay.
4 kap 3 § regulates the principles of which a builder is entitled time extension in case of an impediment. The provision is divided by five categories. The first category consists of circumstances in which will affect the ability to com-plete the contract in time and can be traced back to the client or someone the client is responsible of. This is the only category in which the builder is enti-tled to compensation in addition to time extension. In a comment related to 4 kap 3 § a reference is made to the “responsibility of control” which concerns purchase law. The implication of “depends on” is defined as causation through NJA 2013 s. 271. The legal position is uncertain regarding re remain-ing formulation. According to a lower court and literature of jurisprudence 4 kap 3 § is to be read along with 5 kap 12 §. In this context the formulation and comment results in a particular circuit of people of which the client is respon-sible. 4 kap 3 § also regulates four categories of instances in which are not due to the client. The builder is obligated to, without delay, notify the client of the circumstances in order to be granted time extension. The provision in-cludes all circumstances which can delay the contract and is thereby not exclu-sive to circumstances regulated in 4 kap 3 §. The client is also through 4 kap 4 § obligated to notify.
During the past years the duty of notification has gained a strengthened posi-tion. Particularly regarding lengthy contractual relationships where the con-tract consists of both rights and obligations. The standard-form contract Ab 04 is detailed beyond most commercial agreements and regulates both time and duty of notification to a large extent. Due to the extent of whish duty of notification is regulated through 4 kap 4 § the risk of a surprising outcome in case of general court is minimized. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9125934
- author
- Leander-Pehrson, Märta LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Hindrance and principle of loyalty in AB 04
- course
- JURM02 20231
- year
- 2023
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Förmögenhetsrätt, Avtalsrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9125934
- date added to LUP
- 2023-10-10 14:18:25
- date last changed
- 2023-10-10 14:18:25
@misc{9125934,
abstract = {{Due to the lack of regulation regarding construction contract law in Sweden, the application of standard-form contracts is common. Negotiation between representatives from both parties has resulted in the contract AB 04 which is the most important contract of the industry.
A delayed contract is often associated with great expenses such as penalty or the loss of rental revenue. The fourth chapter of AB 04 regulates time exten-sion in case of an impediment and to it duty of notification. The importance of cooperation and communication is in the preface of AB 04 emphasized. The principle duty of loyalty is also referred to. The duty of loyalty has in recent years gained a stronger position, and can be referred to as an independent ba-sis which is shown by the ruling of the Swedish Supreme Court in NJA 2021 s. 943. The aim of this essay is to describe the regulation of AB 04 regarding time extension in case of an impediment and if the duty of loyalty could affect the parties duty of notification. A legal dogmatic method is used to examine the legal matter and meet the aims of this essay.
4 kap 3 § regulates the principles of which a builder is entitled time extension in case of an impediment. The provision is divided by five categories. The first category consists of circumstances in which will affect the ability to com-plete the contract in time and can be traced back to the client or someone the client is responsible of. This is the only category in which the builder is enti-tled to compensation in addition to time extension. In a comment related to 4 kap 3 § a reference is made to the “responsibility of control” which concerns purchase law. The implication of “depends on” is defined as causation through NJA 2013 s. 271. The legal position is uncertain regarding re remain-ing formulation. According to a lower court and literature of jurisprudence 4 kap 3 § is to be read along with 5 kap 12 §. In this context the formulation and comment results in a particular circuit of people of which the client is respon-sible. 4 kap 3 § also regulates four categories of instances in which are not due to the client. The builder is obligated to, without delay, notify the client of the circumstances in order to be granted time extension. The provision in-cludes all circumstances which can delay the contract and is thereby not exclu-sive to circumstances regulated in 4 kap 3 §. The client is also through 4 kap 4 § obligated to notify.
During the past years the duty of notification has gained a strengthened posi-tion. Particularly regarding lengthy contractual relationships where the con-tract consists of both rights and obligations. The standard-form contract Ab 04 is detailed beyond most commercial agreements and regulates both time and duty of notification to a large extent. Due to the extent of whish duty of notification is regulated through 4 kap 4 § the risk of a surprising outcome in case of general court is minimized.}},
author = {{Leander-Pehrson, Märta}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Hinder och lojalitetsplikt i AB 04}},
year = {{2023}},
}