Fel i entreprenad enligt ABT 06 - Särskilt om gränsdragningen mellan fel och skada på entreprenaden på grund av fel
(2025) JURM02 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- Swedish commercial construction contract law is mainly governed by negotiated standard contracts. These standard contracts are developed by the industry through representation in the organisation Byggandets kontraktskommitté (BKK). Currently, there are two main standard contracts for the two most common forms of construction. AB 04 regulates the standard terms for construction contracts, while ABT 06 regulates the terms for design-build contracts. This essay focuses on the design-build form of contract and the standard contract ABT 06. In a design-build contract, the contractor is responsible not only for the execution of the work but also for its design. As a result of this design responsibility, the contractor also has a functional... (More)
- Swedish commercial construction contract law is mainly governed by negotiated standard contracts. These standard contracts are developed by the industry through representation in the organisation Byggandets kontraktskommitté (BKK). Currently, there are two main standard contracts for the two most common forms of construction. AB 04 regulates the standard terms for construction contracts, while ABT 06 regulates the terms for design-build contracts. This essay focuses on the design-build form of contract and the standard contract ABT 06. In a design-build contract, the contractor is responsible not only for the execution of the work but also for its design. As a result of this design responsibility, the contractor also has a functional responsibility, which means that the contractor is responsible for ensuring that the project fulfils the agreed functional requirements.
ABT 06 makes a distinction between defects and damage to the work caused by defects. If the contractor is liable for a defect, he is also liable for damage to the work caused by the defect. In both cases, there is an actual impact on the contractor’s performance. For detected defects, the contractor is liable for remedial action. If damage is found, the contractor is liable to pay damages. The contractor’s liability therefore depends on whether it is a defect or a damage. The purpose of this essay is to clarify the distinction between defects and damage caused by defects in ABT 06.
The method in the essay is based on a legal dogmatic method. During the 2010s, the Swedish Supreme Court developed an interpretation method for standard contracts. This method has been used to fulfil the purpose of the essay.
After a systematic interpretation of ABT 06, it is concluded that the contract does not contain a general definition of what constitutes a defect. Instead, the contractual conformity of the construction needs to be investigated in each individual case based on each specific contract. The investigation shows that the contractor's responsibility for design and function plays a crucial role for what constitutes the contractual condition. If the construction project does not fulfil the agreed functional requirements, the construction project is not considered to be in conformity with the contract and therefore defective.
Furthermore, the investigation shows that the clear distinction between defect and damage caused by defect, as laid out in ABT 06, is affected by the contractor's functional responsibility and what, according to the parties’ agreement, constitutes contractual condition. In practice, the distinction between what constitutes a defect and what constitutes damage is not as clear as ABT 06 suggests. A classification issue may arise, for instance, when damage is so extensive that it means that an agreed functional requirement is no longer considered to be fulfilled. Based on a systematic interpretation of ABT 06, it is concluded that if damage to the construction caused by a defect is so extensive that an agreed functional requirement is no longer considered to be fulfilled, the damage must be reclassified as a defect. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Den svenska kommersiella entreprenadrätten är huvudsakligen reglerad av framförhandlade standardavtal. Standardavtalen förhandlas fram av branschen genom representation i BKK. Idag finns två standardavtal för de två största entreprenadformerna. AB 04 reglerar standardavtalsvillkoren för utförandeentreprenader och ABT 06 reglerar villkoren för totalentreprenader. I denna uppsats är entreprenadformen totalentreprenad och standardavtalet ABT 06 föremål för utredning. I en totalentreprenad ansvarar entreprenören inte enbart för själva utförandet utan även för projekteringen. Till följd av projekteringsansvaret åläggs entreprenören ett funktionsansvar för att entreprenaden uppfyller avtalade funktioner.
I ABT 06 görs en uppdelning mellan fel... (More) - Den svenska kommersiella entreprenadrätten är huvudsakligen reglerad av framförhandlade standardavtal. Standardavtalen förhandlas fram av branschen genom representation i BKK. Idag finns två standardavtal för de två största entreprenadformerna. AB 04 reglerar standardavtalsvillkoren för utförandeentreprenader och ABT 06 reglerar villkoren för totalentreprenader. I denna uppsats är entreprenadformen totalentreprenad och standardavtalet ABT 06 föremål för utredning. I en totalentreprenad ansvarar entreprenören inte enbart för själva utförandet utan även för projekteringen. Till följd av projekteringsansvaret åläggs entreprenören ett funktionsansvar för att entreprenaden uppfyller avtalade funktioner.
I ABT 06 görs en uppdelning mellan fel och skada på entreprenaden på grund av fel. Om entreprenören ansvarar för ett fel, är entreprenören även ansvarig för skador på entreprenaden som felet orsakar. I båda fall är det fråga om en faktisk påverkan på entreprenörens arbetsresultat. För konstaterade fel är entreprenören avhjälpandeskyldig. För konstaterad skada är entreprenören skadeståndsskyldig. Entreprenörens ansvar är alltså beroende av undermålighetens klassificering. Syftet med uppsatsen är att tydliggöra gränsen mellan fel och skada på entreprenaden på grund av fel i ABT 06.
I uppsatsen används i grunden en rättsdogmatisk metod. I HD:s prejudicerande avgöranden har det under 2010-talet utvecklas en tolkningsmetod för standardavtal inom entreprenadbranschen, däribland ABT 06. Denna tolkningsmetod används för att uppfylla uppsatsens syfte.
Efter en systematisk tolkning av ABT 06 konstateras att det inte finns något generellt felbegrepp i ABT 06 att ta hänsyn till i en felbedömning. Istället behöver entreprenadens kontraktsenliga skick utredas i varje enskilt fall utifrån varje enskilt entreprenadavtal. Utredningen visar att entreprenörens projekterings- och funktionsansvar har stor betydelse för vad som utgör kontraktsenligt skick. Om entreprenaden inte uppfyller avtalade funktionskrav anses entreprenaden inte kontraktsenlig och därmed felaktig.
Vidare visar utredningen att den tydliga uppdelning mellan fel och skada på entreprenaden på grund av fel som ABT 06 bygger på, påverkas av entreprenörens funktionsansvar och vad som enligt parternas avtal utgör kontraktsenligt skick. I praktiken blir gränsdragningen mellan vad som utgör fel och vad som utgör skada inte lika självklar som ABT 06 ger uttryck för. En gränsdragningsproblematik kan exempelvis uppstå när en skada har en sådan omfattning att den medför att ett avtalat funktionskrav inte längre anses uppfyllt. Efter en systematisk tolkning av ABT 06 konkluderas att om en skada på entreprenaden som orsakats av ett fel har en sådan omfattning att ett avtalat funktionskrav inte längre kan anses uppfyllt, ska skadan omklassificeras till ett fel. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9189146
- author
- Andersson, Matilda LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Defects in construction works according to ABT 06 - Particularly regarding the distinction between defects and damage to the construction due to defects
- course
- JURM02 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Förmögenhetsrätt, entreprenadrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9189146
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-03 11:17:33
- date last changed
- 2025-06-03 11:17:33
@misc{9189146,
abstract = {{Swedish commercial construction contract law is mainly governed by negotiated standard contracts. These standard contracts are developed by the industry through representation in the organisation Byggandets kontraktskommitté (BKK). Currently, there are two main standard contracts for the two most common forms of construction. AB 04 regulates the standard terms for construction contracts, while ABT 06 regulates the terms for design-build contracts. This essay focuses on the design-build form of contract and the standard contract ABT 06. In a design-build contract, the contractor is responsible not only for the execution of the work but also for its design. As a result of this design responsibility, the contractor also has a functional responsibility, which means that the contractor is responsible for ensuring that the project fulfils the agreed functional requirements.
ABT 06 makes a distinction between defects and damage to the work caused by defects. If the contractor is liable for a defect, he is also liable for damage to the work caused by the defect. In both cases, there is an actual impact on the contractor’s performance. For detected defects, the contractor is liable for remedial action. If damage is found, the contractor is liable to pay damages. The contractor’s liability therefore depends on whether it is a defect or a damage. The purpose of this essay is to clarify the distinction between defects and damage caused by defects in ABT 06.
The method in the essay is based on a legal dogmatic method. During the 2010s, the Swedish Supreme Court developed an interpretation method for standard contracts. This method has been used to fulfil the purpose of the essay.
After a systematic interpretation of ABT 06, it is concluded that the contract does not contain a general definition of what constitutes a defect. Instead, the contractual conformity of the construction needs to be investigated in each individual case based on each specific contract. The investigation shows that the contractor's responsibility for design and function plays a crucial role for what constitutes the contractual condition. If the construction project does not fulfil the agreed functional requirements, the construction project is not considered to be in conformity with the contract and therefore defective.
Furthermore, the investigation shows that the clear distinction between defect and damage caused by defect, as laid out in ABT 06, is affected by the contractor's functional responsibility and what, according to the parties’ agreement, constitutes contractual condition. In practice, the distinction between what constitutes a defect and what constitutes damage is not as clear as ABT 06 suggests. A classification issue may arise, for instance, when damage is so extensive that it means that an agreed functional requirement is no longer considered to be fulfilled. Based on a systematic interpretation of ABT 06, it is concluded that if damage to the construction caused by a defect is so extensive that an agreed functional requirement is no longer considered to be fulfilled, the damage must be reclassified as a defect.}},
author = {{Andersson, Matilda}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Fel i entreprenad enligt ABT 06 - Särskilt om gränsdragningen mellan fel och skada på entreprenaden på grund av fel}},
year = {{2025}},
}