Entreprenörens skyldighet att utföra omtvistade arbeten i AB 04 – Finns det en svensk motsvarighet till den norska hoppeplikten?
(2024) LAGF03 20241Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Det är vanligt att entreprenörer och beställare hamnar i tvister om vilka arbeten som ingår i det ursprungliga avtalet vid bygg- och anläggningsentreprenader. I det dominerande svenska standardavtalet för utförandeentreprenader, AB 04, saknas en uttrycklig reglering om entreprenören är skyldig att utföra de omtvistade arbetena. Denna uppsats försöker genom att tillämpa en metod från Högsta domstolen besvara om AB 04 bör tolkas så att entreprenören har en sådan arbetsskyldighet. En komparativ jämförelse görs vidare med den uttryckliga arbetsskyldigheten i det norska standardavtalet NS 8405.
Eftersom det saknas en uttrycklig reglering av arbetsskyldigheten vid omtvistade arbeten, ger en tolkning av ordalydelsen ingen tydlig vägledning. En... (More) - Det är vanligt att entreprenörer och beställare hamnar i tvister om vilka arbeten som ingår i det ursprungliga avtalet vid bygg- och anläggningsentreprenader. I det dominerande svenska standardavtalet för utförandeentreprenader, AB 04, saknas en uttrycklig reglering om entreprenören är skyldig att utföra de omtvistade arbetena. Denna uppsats försöker genom att tillämpa en metod från Högsta domstolen besvara om AB 04 bör tolkas så att entreprenören har en sådan arbetsskyldighet. En komparativ jämförelse görs vidare med den uttryckliga arbetsskyldigheten i det norska standardavtalet NS 8405.
Eftersom det saknas en uttrycklig reglering av arbetsskyldigheten vid omtvistade arbeten, ger en tolkning av ordalydelsen ingen tydlig vägledning. En tolkning av systematiken och övriga villkor i AB 04 tyder på att omtvistade arbeten inte ursäktar överträdelser så som ett försenat färdigställande. Vidare finns det en möjlighet för beställaren att genom kontrollanmärkningar tvinga entreprenören att utföra omtvistade arbeten. Under förutsättning att det finns vissa begränsningar av arbetsskyldighetens omfattning och entreprenören kompenseras om det fastställs att denne gjort en korrekt bedömning, bör en arbetsskyldighet kunna vara rimlig.
NS 8405 innehåller mer detaljerade bestämmelser om arbetsskyldighetens omfattning, säkerhet och kompensation. Men de faktiska skillnaderna mot AB 04 verkar vara begränsade.
Det verkar alltså som att AB 04 kan tolkas som att entreprenören är skyldig att utföra omtvistade arbeten. (Less) - Abstract
- It is common for entrepreneurs and clients in construction projects to have disputes regarding which parts were included in the original contract. AB 04, the most commonly used Swedish standard contract for construction contracts, lacks explicit regulations on whether the contractor is obliged to perform disputed tasks. By applying a method from the Swedish Supreme Court, this essay attempts to examine whether AB 04 should be interpreted to obligate the contractor to perform disputed tasks. A comparative analysis is also made with the explicit obligation to perform the disputed tasks in the Norwegian standard contract NS 8405.
Since AB 04 lacks explicit regulations regarding the obligation to perform disputed tasks, interpreting its... (More) - It is common for entrepreneurs and clients in construction projects to have disputes regarding which parts were included in the original contract. AB 04, the most commonly used Swedish standard contract for construction contracts, lacks explicit regulations on whether the contractor is obliged to perform disputed tasks. By applying a method from the Swedish Supreme Court, this essay attempts to examine whether AB 04 should be interpreted to obligate the contractor to perform disputed tasks. A comparative analysis is also made with the explicit obligation to perform the disputed tasks in the Norwegian standard contract NS 8405.
Since AB 04 lacks explicit regulations regarding the obligation to perform disputed tasks, interpreting its wording offers no guidance. An interpretation of the systematics and other conditions in AB 04 suggests that a dispute over a task does not excuse breaches such as a delayed completion. Furthermore, there is an possibility for the client to force the contractor to perform the disputed task through inspection remarks. Provided that there are certain limitations on the scope and the contractor is compensated if it is determined that they made a correct assessment, an obligation to perform disputed tasks could be reasonable.
NS 8405 contains more detailed clauses on the scope of the work obligation, security, and compensation. However, the actual differences compared to AB 04 appear to be limited.
Thus, it seems that AB 04 can be interpreted as obliging contractors to perform disputed tasks. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9153397
- author
- Broberg Holm, Anton LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20241
- year
- 2024
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Avtalsrätt, Entreprenadrätt, AB 04
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9153397
- date added to LUP
- 2024-06-26 11:40:33
- date last changed
- 2024-06-26 11:40:33
@misc{9153397,
abstract = {{It is common for entrepreneurs and clients in construction projects to have disputes regarding which parts were included in the original contract. AB 04, the most commonly used Swedish standard contract for construction contracts, lacks explicit regulations on whether the contractor is obliged to perform disputed tasks. By applying a method from the Swedish Supreme Court, this essay attempts to examine whether AB 04 should be interpreted to obligate the contractor to perform disputed tasks. A comparative analysis is also made with the explicit obligation to perform the disputed tasks in the Norwegian standard contract NS 8405.
Since AB 04 lacks explicit regulations regarding the obligation to perform disputed tasks, interpreting its wording offers no guidance. An interpretation of the systematics and other conditions in AB 04 suggests that a dispute over a task does not excuse breaches such as a delayed completion. Furthermore, there is an possibility for the client to force the contractor to perform the disputed task through inspection remarks. Provided that there are certain limitations on the scope and the contractor is compensated if it is determined that they made a correct assessment, an obligation to perform disputed tasks could be reasonable.
NS 8405 contains more detailed clauses on the scope of the work obligation, security, and compensation. However, the actual differences compared to AB 04 appear to be limited.
Thus, it seems that AB 04 can be interpreted as obliging contractors to perform disputed tasks.}},
author = {{Broberg Holm, Anton}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Entreprenörens skyldighet att utföra omtvistade arbeten i AB 04 – Finns det en svensk motsvarighet till den norska hoppeplikten?}},
year = {{2024}},
}