@misc{9228031,
  abstract     = {{Contracts often contain time limits for when claims must be made in the event of a breach of contract. Clauses of this kind serve an important function by creating predictability and clarity between the contracting parties. Problems arise when a clause sets out a time limit but does not expressly state the con-sequence of failing to comply with it. In such cases, it is not clear under what conditions the clause may nevertheless have preclusive effect, that is, cause a party to lose the right to bring a claim. 
This thesis examines under what conditions contractual clauses containing time limits for the assertion of claims may be given preclusive effect even though the legal consequence is not expressly stated. It addresses the require-ments imposed on the drafting of such clauses if they are to result in loss of rights, as well as the conditions under which such effect may be derived through interpretation or gap-filling. Special emphasis is placed on the Swe-dish Supreme Court’s judgment in NJA 2025 s. 374, “Brf Ida”. 
The analysis shows that preclusive effect is regarded as a far-reaching legal consequence. This justifies a restrictive approach to the interpretation of the clauses. The thesis also discusses the tension in legal doctrine between a more cautious line, which requires clear support for loss of rights, and a stronger line, according to which failure to give notice normally leads to loss of rights. However, “Brf Ida” clarifies that the principle of notice cannot automatically support preclusive effect where the contract is unclear.
Against this background, the thesis concludes that clauses intended to result in loss of rights should be drafted clearly and precisely. It should be expressly stated that late notice leads to loss of rights. The conclusion is that preclusive effect is not excluded merely because loss of rights is not expressly stated. However, after “Brf Ida” the threshold for interpreting or filling in such legal consequence is high. In summary, the thesis shows that the legal position after “Brf Ida” is characterized by restraint. Parties wishing to achieve preclusion must generally state this clearly in the contract.}},
  author       = {{Nilsson, Emilia}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Rättsförlust vid sen underrättelse - Om klausuler om tidsfrister för framställande av krav utan uttrycklig rättsföljd i kommersiellt präglade avtalsförhållanden}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}