Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Köparens möjlighet till ersättning vid säljarens dröjsmål: Standardavtalen NL 17 och ALOS 05:s förhållande till dispositiv rätt

Jonasson, Gabriel LU (2024) JURM02 20241
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
För att parter ska vilja ingå avtal med varandra måste det finnas påföljder som kan aktualiseras om en av parterna bryter mot avtalet. Skadestånd är en påföljd som både har en reparativ och en avskräckande funktion. Bestämmelser om skadestånd finns i ett antal lagar, som exempelvis i KöpL och i SkL. Det finns även olika standardavtal som innehåller bestämmelser om skadelidande
parts möjlighet att kräva skadestånd vid motpartens kontraktsbrott när avtalet
tillämpas. Vilken möjlighet en skadelidande part har att kräva ersättning vid motpartens kontraktsbrott beror på den reglering som ligger till grund för avtalsförhållandet.

I uppsatsen undersöks standardavtalen NL 17 och ALOS 05 och deras förhållande till dispositiv rätt. Syftet är... (More)
För att parter ska vilja ingå avtal med varandra måste det finnas påföljder som kan aktualiseras om en av parterna bryter mot avtalet. Skadestånd är en påföljd som både har en reparativ och en avskräckande funktion. Bestämmelser om skadestånd finns i ett antal lagar, som exempelvis i KöpL och i SkL. Det finns även olika standardavtal som innehåller bestämmelser om skadelidande
parts möjlighet att kräva skadestånd vid motpartens kontraktsbrott när avtalet
tillämpas. Vilken möjlighet en skadelidande part har att kräva ersättning vid motpartens kontraktsbrott beror på den reglering som ligger till grund för avtalsförhållandet.

I uppsatsen undersöks standardavtalen NL 17 och ALOS 05 och deras förhållande till dispositiv rätt. Syftet är att klargöra köparens möjligheter att bli ersatt för de skador han lider på grund av säljarens dröjsmål med varans avlämnande och vilka skillnaderna kan bli beroende på vilket avtal som tillämpas respektive om det istället är dispositiv rätt som tillämpas. I uppsatsen undersöks också om det finns en möjlighet att åsidosätta klausuler i standardavtalen
som sätter köparen i en sämre position än vad som följer av dispositiv rätt. Uppsatsens frågeställningar besvaras genom användandet av en rättsdogmatisk metod och genom avtalstolkning. Materialet som använts är främst avtalstext, lagtext, praxis och doktrin.

Standardavtalen som undersöks i uppsatsen, NL 17 och ALOS 05, reglerar båda köp av lös egendom mellan kommersiella parter varför jämförelser med
dispositiv rätt främst gjorts i förhållande till KöpL. Där avtalsklausulerna är oklara har de tolkats med hjälp av dispositiv rätt och kommentarer till avtalen för att försöka klargöra vad som gäller.

En skillnad mellan de båda standardavtalen och KöpL är att det i standardavtalen som huvudregel utgår vite innan det kan bli aktuellt med skadestånd. Vidare måste köparen häva köpet innan skadestånd kan utgå enligt avtalen,
något krav på hävning ställs inte upp i KöpL. I avtalen finns bestämmelser som begränsar det belopp som kan utgå i skadestånd. Därutöver kan indirekta förluster ersättas först om säljaren varit grovt vårdslös. Enligt KöpL krävs det
försumlighet för att skadestånd för indirekta förluster ska utgå, vilket innebär att det är ett lägre ställt krav. De skillnader som finns mellan avtalen och KöpL gynnar främst säljaren. KöpL kan därför sägas vara mer köparvänlig. I uppsatsen visas att det kan finnas en möjlighet att jämka avtalsklausulerna enligt 36 § AvtL om det visar sig få ett oskäligt resultat i det enskilda fallet. I och med att det rör avtal mellan kommersiella parter sker det dock med stor försiktighet. Vidare berörs det förhållandet att det på grund av senare praxis finns en risk att vissa av avtalsklausulerna kan komma att tillämpas på annat sätt än vad som var avsett när de skrevs. (Less)
Abstract
For parties to want to enter into agreements with each other, there must be sanctions that can be imposed if one of the parties breaches the agreement. Damages are a sanction that has both a reparative and a deterrent function.
Damage provisions are found in several laws, such as in the Sale of Goods Act and in the Tort Liability Act. Various standard-form contracts contain provisions on the injured party's ability to claim damages in the event of the other party's breach of contract when the contract is applied. The possibility
for an injured party to claim compensation in the event of the other party's breach of contract depends on the regulation that forms the basis of the contractual relationship.

The essay examines the... (More)
For parties to want to enter into agreements with each other, there must be sanctions that can be imposed if one of the parties breaches the agreement. Damages are a sanction that has both a reparative and a deterrent function.
Damage provisions are found in several laws, such as in the Sale of Goods Act and in the Tort Liability Act. Various standard-form contracts contain provisions on the injured party's ability to claim damages in the event of the other party's breach of contract when the contract is applied. The possibility
for an injured party to claim compensation in the event of the other party's breach of contract depends on the regulation that forms the basis of the contractual relationship.

The essay examines the standard-form contracts NL 17 and ALOS 05 and their relationship to optional law. The purpose is to clarify the buyer's possibilities of being compensated for the damages he suffers due to the seller's
delay in delivering the goods and what the differences may be depending on which agreement is applied or whether optional law is applied instead. The essay also examines whether there is a possibility to override clauses in the
standard-form contracts that put the buyer in a worse position than what follows from optional law. The questions in the essay are answered by using a legal dogmatic method and through contract interpretation. The material
used consists of contract documents, text of law, court practice and doctrine.

The standard-form contracts examined in the essay, NL 17 and ALOS 05, both regulate the purchase of personal property between commercial parties. Therefore, comparisons with optional law have mainly been made to the
Sale of Goods Act. Where the contractual clauses are unclear, they have been interpreted with the help of optional law and comments to the contracts, to try to clarify the rights and obligations of the parties.

A difference between the two standard-form contracts and the Sale of Goods Act is that in the standard-form contracts, as a general rule, a fine is paid before damages can be claimed. Furthermore, the buyer must cancel the pur
chase before damages can be claimed according to the contracts, but no requirement for cancellation is set out in the Sale of Goods Act. The contracts contain provisions that limit the amount that can be paid in damages. In addition, indirect losses can only be compensated if the seller has been grossly
negligent. According to the Sale of Goods Act, regular negligence is required for damages of indirect losses to be paid. The differences that exist between the contracts and the Sale of Goods Act mainly benefit the seller. The Sale of Goods Act can therefore be said to be more buyer-friendly. The essay shows that there may be a possibility to adjust the contractual clauses according to Section 36 of the Contracts Act if they turn out to have an un
reasonable result in the individual case. However, as it concerns contracts between commercial parties, it is done with great caution. Furthermore, the risk that some of the contract clauses may be applied in a different way than intended is also mentioned. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Jonasson, Gabriel LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The buyer's possibility of compensation in the event of the seller's delay: The standard-form contracts NL 17 and ALOS 05's relationship to optional law
course
JURM02 20241
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Civilrätt, förmögenhetsrätt, avtalsrätt, standardavtal, skadeståndsrätt, köprätt.
language
Swedish
id
9153162
date added to LUP
2024-06-12 08:18:20
date last changed
2024-06-12 08:18:20
@misc{9153162,
  abstract     = {{For parties to want to enter into agreements with each other, there must be sanctions that can be imposed if one of the parties breaches the agreement. Damages are a sanction that has both a reparative and a deterrent function. 
Damage provisions are found in several laws, such as in the Sale of Goods Act and in the Tort Liability Act. Various standard-form contracts contain provisions on the injured party's ability to claim damages in the event of the other party's breach of contract when the contract is applied. The possibility 
for an injured party to claim compensation in the event of the other party's breach of contract depends on the regulation that forms the basis of the contractual relationship. 

The essay examines the standard-form contracts NL 17 and ALOS 05 and their relationship to optional law. The purpose is to clarify the buyer's possibilities of being compensated for the damages he suffers due to the seller's 
delay in delivering the goods and what the differences may be depending on which agreement is applied or whether optional law is applied instead. The essay also examines whether there is a possibility to override clauses in the 
standard-form contracts that put the buyer in a worse position than what follows from optional law. The questions in the essay are answered by using a legal dogmatic method and through contract interpretation. The material 
used consists of contract documents, text of law, court practice and doctrine. 

The standard-form contracts examined in the essay, NL 17 and ALOS 05, both regulate the purchase of personal property between commercial parties. Therefore, comparisons with optional law have mainly been made to the 
Sale of Goods Act. Where the contractual clauses are unclear, they have been interpreted with the help of optional law and comments to the contracts, to try to clarify the rights and obligations of the parties. 

A difference between the two standard-form contracts and the Sale of Goods Act is that in the standard-form contracts, as a general rule, a fine is paid before damages can be claimed. Furthermore, the buyer must cancel the pur
chase before damages can be claimed according to the contracts, but no requirement for cancellation is set out in the Sale of Goods Act. The contracts contain provisions that limit the amount that can be paid in damages. In addition, indirect losses can only be compensated if the seller has been grossly 
negligent. According to the Sale of Goods Act, regular negligence is required for damages of indirect losses to be paid. The differences that exist between the contracts and the Sale of Goods Act mainly benefit the seller. The Sale of Goods Act can therefore be said to be more buyer-friendly. The essay shows that there may be a possibility to adjust the contractual clauses according to Section 36 of the Contracts Act if they turn out to have an un
reasonable result in the individual case. However, as it concerns contracts between commercial parties, it is done with great caution. Furthermore, the risk that some of the contract clauses may be applied in a different way than intended is also mentioned.}},
  author       = {{Jonasson, Gabriel}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Köparens möjlighet till ersättning vid säljarens dröjsmål: Standardavtalen NL 17 och ALOS 05:s förhållande till dispositiv rätt}},
  year         = {{2024}},
}