Avtalstolkningens ram – Hur processens ram fastställs vid avtalstolkning i dispositiva tvistemål
(2024) JURM02 20242Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Denna uppsats undersöker hur processens ram fastställs vid avtalstolkning i dispositiva tvistemål. Syftet är att klargöra vilka delar av en avtalstolkning som domstolen ansvarar för att utreda och vilka delar som är beroende av parternas dispositioner. Uppsatsen bygger på en rättsdogmatisk metod för att utröna den gällande rätten och svaren på uppsatsens frågeställningar. Uppsatsen besvarar följande tre frågeställningar: vilka delar av en avtalstolkning som domstolen ska utreda ex officio, vilka som måste åberopas av parterna och vilka delar som måste föras in som bevisning.
Rörande den första frågeställningen konstateras att domstolen ska utreda samtliga avtalstolkningsmetoder vid varje givet tillfälle. Detta innebär att dom-stolen... (More) - Denna uppsats undersöker hur processens ram fastställs vid avtalstolkning i dispositiva tvistemål. Syftet är att klargöra vilka delar av en avtalstolkning som domstolen ansvarar för att utreda och vilka delar som är beroende av parternas dispositioner. Uppsatsen bygger på en rättsdogmatisk metod för att utröna den gällande rätten och svaren på uppsatsens frågeställningar. Uppsatsen besvarar följande tre frågeställningar: vilka delar av en avtalstolkning som domstolen ska utreda ex officio, vilka som måste åberopas av parterna och vilka delar som måste föras in som bevisning.
Rörande den första frågeställningen konstateras att domstolen ska utreda samtliga avtalstolkningsmetoder vid varje givet tillfälle. Detta innebär att dom-stolen självmant ska undersöka de olika avtalstolkningsmetodernas användning på processmaterialet för att utröna ett tolkningsresultat. Detta innefattar både subjektiva och objektiva metoder samt det som kallas avtalstolkningens prioriteringsregler. Domstolen har dessutom viss möjlighet att ex officio beakta olika tolkningsdata. Den ska utreda notoriska fakta samt fakta om bakom-liggande rätt som tolkningsdata, då sådana fakta alltid ingår i processen.
Den andra frågeställningen rör kraven på parternas åberopanden. Analysen visar att det inte är nödvändigt för parterna att åberopa specifika avtalstolkningsmetoder eller tolkningsdata. Domstolen kan tolka det åberopade avtals-villkoret utifrån de tolkningsmetoder som den anser vara relevanta.
Den tredje frågeställningen rör parternas ansvar att föra in och bevisa tolkningsdata som inte är notoriska eller en del av bakomliggande rätt. Exempelvis måste parterna bevisa att det funnits en gemensam partsavsikt eller ett avvikande branschspråkbruk som ska användas. Förutsatt att avtalet som helhet förts in i målet kan domstolen dra slutsatser utifrån det, även om parterna inte själva pekat ut specifika tolkningsdata.
Resultatet av uppsatsens undersökning pekar mot att HD inte behandlar avtalstolkningsmetoder som rättsregler. Detta innebär att tolkningsmetoderna utgör verktyg för domstolen snarare än bindande regler. Domstolen får däri-genom en möjlighet att anpassa sin tolkning till omständigheterna i varje en-skilt fall utan att parternas åberopanden och utredning begränsar den i någon större utsträckning. Genom denna analys bidrar uppsatsen till en tydligare förståelse för hur processens ram vid avtalstolkning ska hanteras. Den belyser därigenom på ett praktiskt sätt skillnaden mellan domstolens ansvar och parternas ansvar vid avtalstolkning. (Less) - Abstract
- This thesis examines how the scope of the procedure is determined in a case concerning contract interpretation within civil disputes capable of settlement. The purpose is to clarify which aspects of contract interpretation fall under the court's responsibility to investigate and which aspects depend on the parties' disposition. The thesis adopts a legal dogmatic method to determine the answers to its research questions. The thesis addresses three research questions: which aspects of contract interpretation the court must investigate ex officio, which aspects must be invoked (in accordance with chapter 17 section 3 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure) by the parties, and which elements must be introduced as evidence.
Regarding the... (More) - This thesis examines how the scope of the procedure is determined in a case concerning contract interpretation within civil disputes capable of settlement. The purpose is to clarify which aspects of contract interpretation fall under the court's responsibility to investigate and which aspects depend on the parties' disposition. The thesis adopts a legal dogmatic method to determine the answers to its research questions. The thesis addresses three research questions: which aspects of contract interpretation the court must investigate ex officio, which aspects must be invoked (in accordance with chapter 17 section 3 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure) by the parties, and which elements must be introduced as evidence.
Regarding the first question, it is established that the court must examine all contract interpretation methods in each case. This means that the court must independently evaluate the applicability of various interpretation methods to the procedural material to reach an interpretive conclusion. This includes both subjective and objective methods, as well as the so-called prioritization rules of contract interpretation. Furthermore, the court has some authority to con-sider interpretive data ex officio. It is required to incorporate notorious facts and facts related to the underlying law as interpretive data, as these elements automatically form part of the scope of the procedure.
The second question pertains to the parties' obligation to invoke certain aspects. The analysis shows that it is unnecessary for the parties to specifically invoke contract interpretation methods or interpretive data. The court can interpret the invoked contractual clause using the interpretive methods it deems relevant.
The third question addresses the parties' responsibility to introduce and prove interpretive data that are neither notorious facts nor part of the underlying law. For instance, the parties must prove the existence of a shared intent or industry-specific terminology that they consider the clause should be interpreted in accordance with. Provided the entire contract is introduced into the case, the court may draw conclusions from it even if the parties themselves have not identified specific interpretive data.
The results of the study indicate that the Supreme Court does not consider contract interpretation methods as legal rules. Instead, these methods function as tools for the court rather than as binding principles. This allows the court to adapt its interpretation to the circumstances of each individual case without being significantly constrained by the parties' invocations or submissions. Through this analysis, the thesis contributes to a clearer understanding of how the procedural framework for contract interpretation is managed. It highlights, in a practical manner, the distinction between the responsibilities of the court and the parties in the context of contract interpretation. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9179677
- author
- Haglund, Emil LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- The Scope of the Procedure of Contract Interpretation – How the scope of the procedure is determined in a case concerning contract interpretation within civil disputes capable of settlement
- course
- JURM02 20242
- year
- 2024
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- avtalsrätt, förmögenhetsrätt, civilrätt, processrätt, civilprocessrätt, avtalstolkningsrätt, processens ram, avtalstolkning, rättegångsbalken, avtalslagen
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9179677
- date added to LUP
- 2025-01-16 12:55:10
- date last changed
- 2025-01-16 12:55:10
@misc{9179677,
abstract = {{This thesis examines how the scope of the procedure is determined in a case concerning contract interpretation within civil disputes capable of settlement. The purpose is to clarify which aspects of contract interpretation fall under the court's responsibility to investigate and which aspects depend on the parties' disposition. The thesis adopts a legal dogmatic method to determine the answers to its research questions. The thesis addresses three research questions: which aspects of contract interpretation the court must investigate ex officio, which aspects must be invoked (in accordance with chapter 17 section 3 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure) by the parties, and which elements must be introduced as evidence.
Regarding the first question, it is established that the court must examine all contract interpretation methods in each case. This means that the court must independently evaluate the applicability of various interpretation methods to the procedural material to reach an interpretive conclusion. This includes both subjective and objective methods, as well as the so-called prioritization rules of contract interpretation. Furthermore, the court has some authority to con-sider interpretive data ex officio. It is required to incorporate notorious facts and facts related to the underlying law as interpretive data, as these elements automatically form part of the scope of the procedure.
The second question pertains to the parties' obligation to invoke certain aspects. The analysis shows that it is unnecessary for the parties to specifically invoke contract interpretation methods or interpretive data. The court can interpret the invoked contractual clause using the interpretive methods it deems relevant.
The third question addresses the parties' responsibility to introduce and prove interpretive data that are neither notorious facts nor part of the underlying law. For instance, the parties must prove the existence of a shared intent or industry-specific terminology that they consider the clause should be interpreted in accordance with. Provided the entire contract is introduced into the case, the court may draw conclusions from it even if the parties themselves have not identified specific interpretive data.
The results of the study indicate that the Supreme Court does not consider contract interpretation methods as legal rules. Instead, these methods function as tools for the court rather than as binding principles. This allows the court to adapt its interpretation to the circumstances of each individual case without being significantly constrained by the parties' invocations or submissions. Through this analysis, the thesis contributes to a clearer understanding of how the procedural framework for contract interpretation is managed. It highlights, in a practical manner, the distinction between the responsibilities of the court and the parties in the context of contract interpretation.}},
author = {{Haglund, Emil}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Avtalstolkningens ram – Hur processens ram fastställs vid avtalstolkning i dispositiva tvistemål}},
year = {{2024}},
}