Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Den allmänna principen om reklamation - Ett minne blott? - Den allmänna reklamationsskyldigheten i ljuset av NJA 2025 s. 374

Nilsson Gullberg, Oscar LU (2025) LAGF03 20252
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats utreder huruvida rättsläget för den allmänna principen om att reklamera vid avtalsbrott utanför det lagreglerade området har förändrats till följd av Högsta domstolens avgörande i NJA 2025 s. 374 ”Brf Ida”.
För att klargöra vad reklamation är konstateras att preskription har en förutbestämd tidsram, medan reklamationsfristens start- och slutpunkt varierar bero-ende på de enskilda omständigheterna.
Den allmänna principen om att reklamera finns lagfäst, i synnerhet inom köp-rätten i såväl kommersiella som konsumenträttsliga förhållanden. Det faktum att reklamation är lagfäst på flera ställen anses ge uttryck för en allmän princip om reklamation. Analogier från näraliggande lagområden bör däremot ske med försiktighet.
Det... (More)
Denna uppsats utreder huruvida rättsläget för den allmänna principen om att reklamera vid avtalsbrott utanför det lagreglerade området har förändrats till följd av Högsta domstolens avgörande i NJA 2025 s. 374 ”Brf Ida”.
För att klargöra vad reklamation är konstateras att preskription har en förutbestämd tidsram, medan reklamationsfristens start- och slutpunkt varierar bero-ende på de enskilda omständigheterna.
Den allmänna principen om att reklamera finns lagfäst, i synnerhet inom köp-rätten i såväl kommersiella som konsumenträttsliga förhållanden. Det faktum att reklamation är lagfäst på flera ställen anses ge uttryck för en allmän princip om reklamation. Analogier från näraliggande lagområden bör däremot ske med försiktighet.
Det står klart att reklamationsskyldigheten som allmän princip har haft stöd i svensk rätt före ”Brf Ida”, framför allt i rättspraxis. I de avgöranden principen aktualiseras har HD antingen enbart nämnt principen obiter dictum, eller också baserat domslutet på principen. I de fall då HD avviker från att basera domslutet på principen har orsaken till detta motiverats. Principen har varit del av många prejudikat vilket lett till att den blivit väletablerad.
I ”Brf Ida” berörde majoriteten inte reklamationsplikten, vilket har väckt frågetecken avseende principens räckvidd och ställning. Uppsatsens slutsats är trots det att avgörandet inte innebär att principens ställning har förändrats. I stället förefaller HD ha intagit en mer försiktig hållning till att tillämpa en utfyllande tolkning i standardavtal som leder till en rättighetsavskärande verkan. De enskilda omständigheterna påverkade troligtvis principens tillämpning.
Sammantaget är uppsatsens slutsats att avgörandet inte innebär att principens ställning har förändrats. Rättsföljden av utebliven reklamation är preklusion, både innan och efter ”Brf Ida”. (Less)
Abstract
This thesis examines whether the legal situation for the general principle regarding the duty to give notice of breach of contract outside the scope of legislation has shifted due to the Supreme Court’s decision in NJA 2025 s. 374 “Brf Ida”.
To clarify what the general principle of a duty to give notice is, it is noted that prescription has a fixed starting point. By contrast, the duty to give notice has different starting and ending points due to the individual circumstances in each case.
The general principle of a duty to give notice is established in law, particularly within the legislation of sales in both commercial and consumer relations. The fact that the duty to give notice is legislated through different legal provisions is... (More)
This thesis examines whether the legal situation for the general principle regarding the duty to give notice of breach of contract outside the scope of legislation has shifted due to the Supreme Court’s decision in NJA 2025 s. 374 “Brf Ida”.
To clarify what the general principle of a duty to give notice is, it is noted that prescription has a fixed starting point. By contrast, the duty to give notice has different starting and ending points due to the individual circumstances in each case.
The general principle of a duty to give notice is established in law, particularly within the legislation of sales in both commercial and consumer relations. The fact that the duty to give notice is legislated through different legal provisions is considered an expression of a general principle of a duty to give notice. Analogies from similar legislative areas should be made with caution.
The duty to give notice as a general principle has had support in Swedish law before “Brf Ida”, mostly due to case law. In cases where the principle has been a part of the court’s reasoning, the, it has either been mentioned obiter dictum or served as the basis for the judgement. When the Supreme Court decided to not base the judgement on the principle, the reason for this has been justified by the Supreme Court. As the principle has been part of many precedents, it has become well established.
In “Brf Ida”, the majority did not refer to the principle which led to questions regarding the principle’s scope and status. However, the conclusion of this thesis is that the status of the principle remains unchanged. Instead, the Supreme Court appears to have taken a more cautious approach to applying principles with preclusive effects when interpreting standard contracts. The individual circumstances were probably decisive for the principle’s applicability.
To summarize, the conclusion of the essay is that the principle’s status is un-changed due to the decision. The legal consequence of failure to give notice is preclusion, both before and after “Brf Ida”. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Nilsson Gullberg, Oscar LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20252
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Avtalsrätt, Förmögenhetsrätt, Reklamation, Reklamationsskyldighet, Allmänna principer, Förmögenhetsrättsliga principer
language
Swedish
id
9217116
date added to LUP
2026-02-09 15:36:12
date last changed
2026-02-09 15:36:12
@misc{9217116,
  abstract     = {{This thesis examines whether the legal situation for the general principle regarding the duty to give notice of breach of contract outside the scope of legislation has shifted due to the Supreme Court’s decision in NJA 2025 s. 374 “Brf Ida”.
To clarify what the general principle of a duty to give notice is, it is noted that prescription has a fixed starting point. By contrast, the duty to give notice has different starting and ending points due to the individual circumstances in each case.
The general principle of a duty to give notice is established in law, particularly within the legislation of sales in both commercial and consumer relations. The fact that the duty to give notice is legislated through different legal provisions is considered an expression of a general principle of a duty to give notice. Analogies from similar legislative areas should be made with caution.
The duty to give notice as a general principle has had support in Swedish law before “Brf Ida”, mostly due to case law. In cases where the principle has been a part of the court’s reasoning, the, it has either been mentioned obiter dictum or served as the basis for the judgement. When the Supreme Court decided to not base the judgement on the principle, the reason for this has been justified by the Supreme Court. As the principle has been part of many precedents, it has become well established.
In “Brf Ida”, the majority did not refer to the principle which led to questions regarding the principle’s scope and status. However, the conclusion of this thesis is that the status of the principle remains unchanged. Instead, the Supreme Court appears to have taken a more cautious approach to applying principles with preclusive effects when interpreting standard contracts. The individual circumstances were probably decisive for the principle’s applicability. 
To summarize, the conclusion of the essay is that the principle’s status is un-changed due to the decision. The legal consequence of failure to give notice is preclusion, both before and after “Brf Ida”.}},
  author       = {{Nilsson Gullberg, Oscar}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Den allmänna principen om reklamation - Ett minne blott? - Den allmänna reklamationsskyldigheten i ljuset av NJA 2025 s. 374}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}