<p>En grundläggande princip inom svensk rätt är att en part skall hålla sig till sin avtalspart, principen om avtalets subjektiva begränsning. Innebörden av rättsprincipen är att i händelse av avtalsbrott kan indirekt skadelidande endast rikta ersättningsanspråk mot sin avtalspart. Regeln innebär att en part som åsamkats skada på grund av någon utomstående inte kan rikta krav mot denne. Vid entreprenadavtal ingår vanligtvis en beställare avtal med en huvudentreprenör, som i sin tur anlitar en eller flera underentreprenörer. Underentreprenören blir då en utomstående part till beställaren eftersom det inte föreligger något avtalsförhållande mellan de två parterna. Kontraktskedjan består således av beställaren, huvudentreprenören (främre led i kedjan) och underentreprenören (bakre led i kedjan).</p><p>Principen om avtalets subjektiva begränsning innebär att om bakre led orsakar skada på entreprenaden eller beställarens egendom, skall beställaren rikta ersättningskrav mot främre led. Främre led får då återkravsrätt mot underentreprenören. Under vissa omständigheter kan det dock vara till fördel för indirekt skadelidande om denne kan rikta ersättningskrav direkt mot skadevållaren, exempelvis vid främre leds insolvens.</p><p>Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda huruvida en beställare av entreprenad har rätt att rikta krav mot skadevållaren i bakre led, så kallad direktkravsrätt. Direktkravsrätten har, direkt eller indirekt, diskuterats i rättsfall och i ett fåtal fall har direktkrav varit möjligt. Flertalet rättsfall berör entreprenader där användning av standardavtal är normen. Genom dessa avtal har huvudentreprenören givits ett strikt ansvar för fel och skada på entreprenaden. Huvudentreprenören är även strikt ansvarig för skada som underentreprenörer orsakar på entreprenaden. Vid skada på annan egendom än entreprenaden finns emellertid ansvarsbegränsningar som inskränker beställarens möjligheter att utfå ersättning som täcker hela skadan. Genom rättsfall och doktrin har villkoren i standardavtalen ansetts utgöra en spärr mot beställarens möjligheter att rikta direktkrav mot bakre led. I fall där avtalet mellan beställaren och främre led inte innehållit villkor likt de i standardavtalen, har beställaren tillerkänts direktkravsrätt.</p><p>Direktkravsrätten är ett kontroversiellt område där motståndare varnar för långtgående konsekvenser, såsom omfattande kretsar av skadelidande och rättsosäkerhet. Förespråkare av direktkrav menar däremot att varje fall är unikt och behöver inte nödvändigtvis medföra negativa konsekvenser.</p><p>I det senaste rättsfallet där direktkrav tillerkändes en beställare av entreprenad ansåg Högsta Domstolen (HD) att indirekt skadelidande innehade ett konkret och närliggande intresse i den skadade egendomen. HD ansåg att intresset bör ha varit tydligt för bakre led varför direktkravet inte kunde anses leda till rättsosäkerhet eller till omfattande kretsar av skadelidande. Förutom det nu nämnda intresset är det mycket svårt att uppställa kriterier för när och varför direktkrav kan tillerkännas en beställare av entreprenad. Kravrätten är ännu ett relativt oprövat rättsområde varför tydliga riktlinjer och kriterier ännu inte finns. Genom ifrågavarande rättsfall är det emellertid visat att direktkravsrätt, i vissa fall, är möjligt vid entreprenadförhållanden.</p>

<p> </p><p>When a couple divorce or when couples move apart a division of property can be done. A married couple's property constitutes of joint property and private property. In a division of property between spouses is only the value of the joint property included, not the value of the private property. In a division of property between couples that live together but not a married their joint property that are bought to be used by them together will be included. It is the value of the joint property that will be shared in the division of property. Other property that the couple has will either be kept by the person who bought it or if they hold the property in joint ownership, the value will be divided between them, but outside the rules of partition of property in the Swedish law.</p><p>A rented apartment that has been converted into a co-operative apartment during the marriage and the time that the married couple lived in the apartment should be divided between them in a division of property. They have during the marriage done a purchase of the apartment and the co-operative apartment should be seen as joint property.</p><p>A rented apartment that has been converted in to a co-operative apartment during the time that the couple, that not is married, lived in the apartment will affect the division of property in different ways. If the rented apartment was obtained to be used by the couple together the co-operative apartment shall be included in the division of property. If the rented apartment was not obtained to be used by the couple together, it could be that one of them lived in the apartment before the relationship, the co-operative apartment should not be included in the division of property. A rented apartment that are under transformation when the relationship ends have an economic value during the process. It should however be some security that the apartment will be a co-operative apartment before the value can be included in the division of property. What determines whether a converted co-operative apartment should be included in the division of property is if the rented apartment was obtained for the couple to use together or not.</p><p>When a couple purchases the converted co-operative apartment together a joint ownership to the property can occur. If the joint ownership can be proved, the value of the apartment will be shared according to the Swedish law.</p>

<p>When a person of the older generation in a family owned company wish to transfer his ownership to a person in the younger generation this can be done through a succession of generation. Different methods can be used to proceed with such a matter, selling the company shares for a price below the market value is one example of this.</p><p>When the owner transfers shares to a person in the younger generation, either as a gift or by selling them to a price below the market value, the provision in the 7th chapter 4 § ÄB can be applicable. This provision establish that; when a gift that has been given during the grantors lifetime and when the purpose of this gift is to be equivalent to a testament, the gift shall be returned to the receiver if this action confines with the direct heirs statutory portion.</p><p>A gift is to be equivalent to a testament when the giver had the intention to arrange the succession when the gift was given away, and when this gift did not amount to any economical sacrifice for the giver. There are two situations which causes a gift to be equivalent to a testament. The first situation arises when the gift is given by the giver right before his death, on his deathbed so to speak. The other situation arises when the giver keeps his right of using the gift or when he claims the right to the return, such as dividends etc, of the given property.</p><p>Based upon the conditions that are to be fulfilled for a direct heir to make use of the regulation to claim his statutory portion, some situations can be constructed where the provision in the 7th chapter 4 § ÄB should be both applicable and inapplicable, depending on the nature of the situation. However, there are situations in which it is doubtful whether a gift in a succession of generation is to be equivalent to a testament and whether there exists certain circumstances that will make the provision inapplicable. Even though it is possible to construct situations where the provision is both applicable and inapplicable, one cannot be certain about the outcome in any particular case since there might be circumstances that differs from one situation to another and which will determine whether the provision is applicable.</p><p>In situations where the provision is applicable, the receiver of the gift has an obligation to return the gift or secondary to pay compensation if this is not possible. According to the wording in the provision, the receiver should not be able to determine whether to return the property or whether to pay compensation himself, this is since it is stated in the provision that the property is to be returned and payment is only to be made when this is not possible. In situation where the gift can be returned the receiver shall therefore do this regardless of his opinion of the matter.</p>

No description available.

<p>The European market is constantly changing and business across national borders is be-coming a daily feature. Companies no longer settle for trading within their own national borders and perhaps cannot even afford to restrict themselves to such a small area if they wish to expand. The new view of EC Company Law given by the European Court of Justice makes it possible for companies to move to another Member State and still be recognised as a legitimate company. This view is based on the incorporation theory, i.e. the theory that a company shall be governed by the law of the state in which it is incorporated. However, with this change come new threats to the market. Scholars fear that the European market will take the same approach as that of the US, where the state of Delaware has been able to attract more than half of the larger enterprises on the market in the regulatory competition between the states. In addition to that, the European market has been intro-duced to new supranational companies, i.e. companies that are above national law and answer to EC law, and these companies could have a large impact on the changes of the market. The SE Company and the proposed European Private Company may come to prevent a European Delaware.</p><p>In this paper it is argued that a regulatory competition is going to occur within the Union in the near future – if it has not already – based on changes made by some Member States in order to attract more companies to incorporate under their jurisdiction. It will not fully resemble the situation in the US since the two market fields differ from one another. It is also argued that a European Delaware may come to exist, but that the mere existence of a regulatory competition does not have to result in such a state. A Delaware effect may be prevented by the European Private Company, if this form comes to exist. It is the thesis of this paper that the market in addition to the EPC, in order to actually be able to prevent the somewhat unwished competition, must meet three vital requirements. First of all, the EPC must differ from the statute of the SE Company, meaning it must be separated from national law since it otherwise would be an element of competition in itself. Second, the market – and then mostly through new Company Law Directives – must keep the freedom restricted. If the Directives allowed companies unrestricted freedom of establishment that would mean a possibility to move cross-border without the need for a EPC, which in turn would not be able to prevent a European Delaware. Third, there cannot be a working reincorporation within the Union, meaning Member States cannot be allowed to benefit from tax revenues that derive from such a move, since that would be yet another element to the regulatory competition.</p> / <p>Den europeiska marknaden undergår konstant förändringar och handeln över de nationella gränserna har blivit ett dagligt inslag. Företag nöjer sig ej längre med att endast bedriva verksamhet inom det egna landets gränser och om de önskar att expandera är det måhända inte möjligt att begränsa sig till ett sådant litet område. Europadomstolens nya syn på europeisk bolagsrätt gör det nu möjligt för företag att flytta från en medlemsstat till en annan och fortfarande räknas som ett legalt företag. Denna syn är baserad på den s.k. inkorporeringsteorin, d.v.s. teorin att ett företag skall regleras av lagen i den stat i vilken företaget har inkorporerats. Men med denna förändring kommer nya hot på marknaden. Akademiker befarar att den europeiska marknaden kommer ta an samma ton som den amerikanska där staten Delaware har lyckats locka till sig merparten av de stora företagen på marknaden i den statliga konkurrensen. I tillägg till det nyss sagda har det introducerats nya överstatliga företag på den europeiska marknaden, d.v.s. företag som står över nationella bestämmelser och istället endast regleras av EG lagstiftning, och dessa företag kan komma att ha en stor inverkan på de förändringar som händer på marknaden. Europabolaget och det proponerade Privata Europabolaget kan därigenom komma att hindra ett Europeiskt Delaware.</p><p>Det är i denna uppsats hävdat att en regelverkskonkurrens mellan medlemsstaterna kom-mer att ske på marknaden – om det inte redan har – baserat på de förändringar som vissa medlemsstater redan gjort i respektive lagstiftning för att på så sätt locka till sig fler företag. Situationen kommer inte att till fullo likna den amerikanska eftersom de två marknaderna skiljer sig från varandra. Det är också argumenterat att ett europeiskt Delaware kan uppenbara sig, men att detta inte kommer ske enbart för att det finns en regelverkskonkurrens inom EU. En Delaware-effekt kan komma att hindras av det Privata Europabolaget, om denna form i framtiden accepteras. Teorin enligt denna uppsats är att i det fall ett europeiskt Delaware skall hindras måste den europeiska marknaden uppfylla tre viktiga krav. Först och främst måste det Privata Europabolagets statut skilja sig från Europabolagets, d.v.s. det måste vara separerat från nationella bestämmelser eftersom det i annat fall skulle vara ytterligare en beståndsdel av regelverkskonkurrensen. För det andra måste marknaden – främst genom de nya bolagsdirektiven – hålla friheten på marknaden under kontroll. Om direktiven tillåter företagen att utan hinder utnyttja etableringsfriheten skulle det innebära en möjlighet att röra sig över de nationella gränserna utan ett överstatligt bolag och det i sin tur skulle innebära att det Privata Europabolaget inte skulle kunna hindra ett europeiskt Delaware. För det tredje finns det inget utrymme för en fungerande återinkorporering inom Unionen, d.v.s. att medlemsstaterna inte kan tillåtas dra fördel av de skatteinkomster som kan uppkomma genom en sådan flytt eftersom det skulle gynna regleverkskonkurrensen.</p>

<p>Syftet med uppsatsen är att analysera gällande rätt och de olika överlåtelsemetoder som finns vid gröna generationsskiften. Uppsatsen kommer särskilt uppmärksamma effekterna av de nya bestämmelserna, gällande skogs- och skogsskadekonto, som föreslagits av regeringen och som avses träda i kraft från och med januari 2009. Jämte det kommer även övriga skatterättsliga effekter uppmärksammas.</p><p>Överlag är Sveriges företagare svaga vad gäller att planera sina generationsskiften, vilket kan leda till problem eftersom ett väl genomfört generationsskifte tar mellan tre till fem år. Det är inte enbart de ekonomiska och juridiska aspekterna som måste behandlas, utan hänsyn måste även tas till de så kallade mjuka värdena. Frågor som vem som ska ta över och hur fastigheten ska värderas måste få sina svar. Det är viktigt att ha en öppen kommunikation inom familjen så ingen känner sig åsidosatt.</p><p>Oplanerade generationsskiften sker när den äldre generationen avlider och tillgångarna övergår genom arv. Huvudregeln är att den efterlevande maken ärver all kvarlåtenskap. Därefter är det den legala arvsordningen som avgör vem som har rätt till tillgångarna, vilket kan leda till att en icke lämpad person eller personer som inte kan komma överens får ta över fastigheten med samäganderätt. Planerade generationsskiften genomförs under den äldre generationens livstid. Valet av metod avgörs från fall till fall och det finns inget generellt svar på vilket alternativ som ska rekommenderas.</p><p>Det är huvudsaklighetsprincipen som avgör om en överlåtelse ska klassas som köp eller gåva. Ges ett vederlag som överstiger taxeringsvärdet på fast egendom klassas överlåtelsen som köp, understiger vederlaget taxeringsvärdet klassas det som gåva. Det är direkt avgörande för om en kapitalvinst realiseras eller ej.</p><p>Skogs- och skogsskadekonton ger en skogsbrukare möjlighet att fördela de ojämna resultaten i ett skogsbruk över flera år. Med dagens bestämmelser får inte skogs- och skogsskadekonton skattefritt överföras utan måste tas upp till beskattning i inkomstslaget näringsverksamhet. Regeringen har lagt fram ett förslag som kommer att möjliggöra en överlåtelse av skogs- och skogsskadekonton i samband med arv, testamente, bodelning och gåva till närstående. Syftet till lagförslaget är att underlätta generationsskiften av skogsfastigheter.</p>

<p><!--StartFragment--></p><p>Within the near future Sweden will be facing a large number of successions of ownership  within the agriculture and forestry sector, which is why it is important to acknowledge the question of alternatives for transfer of ownership. The purpose of this thesis is therefore to analyze the existing law as well as the various options for how to transfer the ownership concerning succession of ownership within family-owned agriculture and forestry businesses. This thesis pays particular attention to the complexity of problems that refer to joint ownerships and the great importance of the emotional questions that arise when a succession of ownership is being implemented.</p><p>A succession of ownership can be planned as well as unplanned. When implemented through inheritance the transfer to the younger generation is unplanned. There are several effects of an unplanned succession of ownership and these effects can be harmful for the company as well as the family. If planned preparations can be made then the process can be facilitated by the involvement of the complete family. A planned succession is carried out through purchase, gift or testament. The implementation is a lengthy process and consideration must be taken not only to the economic and legal aspects but also the emotional. A succession can lead to jealousy and arising disputes within the family during and after the succession if the emotional questions are neglected.</p><p>Approximately a third of all agricultural and forestry businesses are owned by more than one person in a joint ownership. Joint ownership can arise through various different reasons such as unplanned, through inheritance or testament, or planned, through purchase or gift. Numerous problems could arise through joint ownership, for example, where there are several joint owners, there could be several different perceptions on how to manage the property. There is the possibility to apply for trusteeship for the property by a legal guardian, however, it is not suitable for every constellation. Agriculture and forestry businesses are often owned as a joint ownership despite the fact that only one of the joint owners conducts and lives on the estate. These problems illustrate that joint ownership is not recommended, and when planning the succession of property, it is always important to be aware of the negative implications of joint ownership.</p><p>It is hard to define an emotional question and there is no unequivocal answer to what such a question implies. The importance of these questions during a succession of ownership should not be belittled since they can determine the outcome of the succession. The emotional questions have a great impact on the succession as a whole and involve everyone. The importance of these questions has attracted more attention during the previous years but there is still a lack of investigations within this area and it is therefore important to highlight their existence.</p><!--EndFragment--><p> </p>

When a couple divorce or when couples move apart a division of property can be done. A married couple's property constitutes of joint property and private property. In a division of property between spouses is only the value of the joint property included, not the value of the private property. In a division of property between couples that live together but not a married their joint property that are bought to be used by them together will be included. It is the value of the joint property that will be shared in the division of property. Other property that the couple has will either be kept by the person who bought it or if they hold the property in joint ownership, the value will be divided between them, but outside the rules of partition of property in the Swedish law. A rented apartment that has been converted into a co-operative apartment during the marriage and the time that the married couple lived in the apartment should be divided between them in a division of property. They have during the marriage done a purchase of the apartment and the co-operative apartment should be seen as joint property. A rented apartment that has been converted in to a co-operative apartment during the time that the couple, that not is married, lived in the apartment will affect the division of property in different ways. If the rented apartment was obtained to be used by the couple together the co-operative apartment shall be included in the division of property. If the rented apartment was not obtained to be used by the couple together, it could be that one of them lived in the apartment before the relationship, the co-operative apartment should not be included in the division of property. A rented apartment that are under transformation when the relationship ends have an economic value during the process. It should however be some security that the apartment will be a co-operative apartment before the value can be included in the division of property. What determines whether a converted co-operative apartment should be included in the division of property is if the rented apartment was obtained for the couple to use together or not. When a couple purchases the converted co-operative apartment together a joint ownership to the property can occur. If the joint ownership can be proved, the value of the apartment will be shared according to the Swedish law.

When a person of the older generation in a family owned company wish to transfer his ownership to a person in the younger generation this can be done through a succession of generation. Different methods can be used to proceed with such a matter, selling the company shares for a price below the market value is one example of this. When the owner transfers shares to a person in the younger generation, either as a gift or by selling them to a price below the market value, the provision in the 7th chapter 4 § ÄB can be applicable. This provision establish that; when a gift that has been given during the grantors lifetime and when the purpose of this gift is to be equivalent to a testament, the gift shall be returned to the receiver if this action confines with the direct heirs statutory portion. A gift is to be equivalent to a testament when the giver had the intention to arrange the succession when the gift was given away, and when this gift did not amount to any economical sacrifice for the giver. There are two situations which causes a gift to be equivalent to a testament. The first situation arises when the gift is given by the giver right before his death, on his deathbed so to speak. The other situation arises when the giver keeps his right of using the gift or when he claims the right to the return, such as dividends etc, of the given property. Based upon the conditions that are to be fulfilled for a direct heir to make use of the regulation to claim his statutory portion, some situations can be constructed where the provision in the 7th chapter 4 § ÄB should be both applicable and inapplicable, depending on the nature of the situation. However, there are situations in which it is doubtful whether a gift in a succession of generation is to be equivalent to a testament and whether there exists certain circumstances that will make the provision inapplicable. Even though it is possible to construct situations where the provision is both applicable and inapplicable, one cannot be certain about the outcome in any particular case since there might be circumstances that differs from one situation to another and which will determine whether the provision is applicable. In situations where the provision is applicable, the receiver of the gift has an obligation to return the gift or secondary to pay compensation if this is not possible. According to the wording in the provision, the receiver should not be able to determine whether to return the property or whether to pay compensation himself, this is since it is stated in the provision that the property is to be returned and payment is only to be made when this is not possible. In situation where the gift can be returned the receiver shall therefore do this regardless of his opinion of the matter.

No description available.