Force majeure kan åberopas som ansvarsbefriande grund när något oförutsett och extraordinärt inträffar, vilket gör att en säljare inte kan fullgöra sin del av avtalet i tid.Begreppet är dock otydligt definierat i såväl lagtext som doktrin. Detta gör att förståelsen fördess användningsområde och tillämplighet är begränsad. På grund av att KöpL är dispositiv kommer force majeure idag oftast till uttryck genom friskrivningsklausuler i standardavtal. Som ett resultat av begreppets oklara innebörd utformas klausulerna på olika sätt, beroende på vilka som är parter, och ger därmed uttryck för olika situationer och omständigheter som kan ligga till grund för skadeståndsfrihet. Friskrivningsklausuler av typen force majeure har blivit allt vanligare, vilket tyder på att begreppet har börjat användas i en vidare utsträckning. Frågan blir således om det är rättssäkert och förutsebart att en part i avtalet ensam ges rätten att tolka huruvida det rör sig om force majeure? I uppsatsen undersöker vi hur begreppet force majeure har utvecklats från gamla till nya KöpL, samt hur force majeure används inom standardavtalsrätten som ansvarsbefriande grund. Detta har inneburit att en grundläggande utredning av 24 § gamla KöpL och 27 § nya KöpL har genomförts. Vi har även valt att beröra internationell köprätt, i form av CISG, eftersom denna ligger till grund för den svenska lagstiftningen. Dessutom har förarbeten, doktrin och internetkällor behandlats. Mot bakgrund av denna avsaknad av vägledning finner vi det motiverat att begreppet force majeure definieras tydligare i lagtext. Förslagsvis kan detta ske genom en uppräkning av händelser, vilka kan åberopas såsom force majeure, samt att hänsyn tas till eiusidem generis vid bedömningen. Detta innebär att de situationer som uppstår ska ha något gemensamt med de som räknas upp i paragrafen för att kunna leda till ansvarsfrihet. Ges begreppet en tydligare definition kan rättssäkerheten öka och därmed också ge avtalsparterna en ökad förståelse för vilka omständigheter som kan ligga till grund för ett åberopande av force majeure.

Villkoret nedan kallas rättelseklausul, det är ett begrepp som inte är vida känt, trots att klausulen används i avtal i många branscher. I doktrin är det enbart Calissendorff och Ramberg som skrivit något mer omfattande om ämnet. Klausulen gör det möjligt för den avtalsbrytande parten att rätta sitt avtalsbrott inom en viss tidsfrist och på så sätt undkomma påföljder, som hävning eller skadestånd. ”Beställaren kan säga upp avtalet till omedelbart upphörande om Leverantören på ett väsentligt sätt bryter mot avtalets bestämmelser, samt inte vidtar rättelse inom 30 dagar efter skriftligt påpekande från beställaren.” Syftet med uppsatsen är att belysa fenomenet rättelseklausul samt försöka ta reda på hur de används, och i vilken utsträckning de bör användas. Som ett steg i detta exemplifieras svårigheterna och problematiken som klausulerna kan ställa till med, men uppsatsen illustrerar också när användandet har ett bakomliggande syfte och används för ett gott och nödvändigt ändamål. För att besvara uppsatsens frågeställning; Bör rättelseklausuler finnas med i avtal? analyseras farorna med användningen av klausulen. Är det möjligt att rätta även grovt vårdslösa eller uppsåtliga avtalsbrott, eller är detta oskäligt? I syfte att besvara uppsatsens frågeställningar är det första steget att utreda gällande rätt inom avtalsrättens område genom att samla in och använda svenska rättskällor. De rättskällor som främst använts är doktrin, rättspraxis och lag, men även vissa förarbeten, skiljedomar och standardavtal behandlas. Slutsatsen är att rättelseklausulens främsta fördelar är att kommunikationen mellan parterna ökar samt att den ger den avtalsbrytande parten en andra chans när ett avtalsbrott begåtts i god tro. Rättsfallen och problembakgrunden visar dock på problematiken med svårtolkade formuleringar och obalanserade villkor. Den gemensamma partsviljan stämmer många gånger inte överens med rättelseklausulen. Utgångspunkten bör därmed vara ett avtal utan rättelseklausul och om parterna vill ha med en rättelseklausul bör den vara mycket noggrant formulerad.

During the later half of the 20th century standard form contracts began to be used more frequently in contract situations. This trend has been consistent and in today’s world numerous commercial parties employ such contracts in their business transactions. The reasons for the extended use of standard form contracts are the benefits that can be obtained for the parties such as time efficiency, effectiveness and price advantages. Standardised contracts often regulate certain issues of the contract for example the way of delivery, remedies and complaints. The definition of such contracts is corresponding in Sweden and England as contracts containing in advance standardised terms with an aim to be used similarly in contract situations with most clients or customers. As the usage of standard form contracts increased, the number of unfair contract terms also enhanced. Therefore, the legislative powers in Sweden and England realised that the rules concerning the freedom of contract had to be restricted and governed. As a result, the legislative powers introduced an open control device through statutory control. This was done in Sweden in 1976 with the enforcement of Section 36 of the Contracts Act, and in England the year after when UCTA came into force. The statutory control in both Sweden and England makes it possible to appraise the fairness of exemption clauses. The statutory control is not identical in the two states. UCTA only concerns exclusion clauses and limitation clauses regarding contract terms and non-contractual notices. In Sweden, on the other hand, there is a general doctrine of unfairness and Section 36 of the Contracts Act can set aside all kinds of agreements. The statutory control is complemented by indirect means of controlling the content of a contract through non statutory methods. The non statutory methods are concerned with the incorporation, interpretation and construction of clauses in a contract. To be valid and for a party to be able to rely on a term it must have been incorporated into the contract. The rules concerning the interpretation of standard form contracts and exclusion clauses are also of great importance. In both states the approach held is that the statutory control should be used preferably over the indirect control means, though the indirect means still has a prominent role in England through common law. Both England and Sweden agree on that the weaker party in a contract situation is in a greater need of protection by the rules of law in unfair contract situations. However unfairness can only arise if the superior party has wrongfully used the exclusion clause. Our study shows the differences between Swedish and English contract law that can result in difficulties in the harmonisation process. These differences concern the test of reasonableness of exemption clauses, the doctrine of good faith, the legal effects and to what extent the indirect means of control should be applied. The Swedish test of reasonableness may include all relevant circumstances irrespective of the time of their occurrence, before or after the entry of the contract. The courts in England are limited to circumstances that have occurred before the closure of the contract. Section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act includes a general rule of unfairness applicable to all kinds of contract terms. The rule of unfairness in the UCTA on the other hand, is only applicable to exemption clauses and indemnity clauses and there is no general rule of unfairness in English contract law. Instead the courts rely on indirect means of control, which therefore is of greater importance in English contract law. Finally, adjustments of unfair exemption clauses has a significant role in Swedish contract law, in contrast to English contract law where any adjustment is regarded as an intrusion of the freedom of contract. To endorse one of the most important aims of the EU; a well working inner market, discussions commenced in 2001. The discussions concerned the harmonisation of the contract law within the union. The questions that arose were whether or not it was possible at all to form a European common contract law and if so, what the effects would be. An action plan was developed by the Commission and today both the EU Parliament and the Council are positive in regard to the continuing work with a reference frame. The Commission aims to pass the reference frame in 2009. Since the EU member states are diverse and have different legal systems a harmonisation of the contract law could cause difficulties. There are differences concerning legal traditions and legal values, hence the legal expertise in Europe is divided in the harmonisation question. The following study aims to analyse the existing rules of law in Sweden and England representing two diverse legal systems existing in Europe; civil law and common law. The focus of this study regards the control of exclusion clauses in standard form contracts in both legal systems. The comparison will then be used to analyse the fundamental question if the harmonisation of contract law in the EU is feasible. Specific areas within the contract law have already been harmonised, which shows a possibility to coordinate common law and civil law. Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts is one example of harmonised contract law in the EU and the principles in PECL is another example which shows that it is possible to coordinate common law and civil law. A harmonisation of the contract law will probably promote the commerce within the union and be the next step towards one of the most prominent goals of the EU, namely a well functioning common market. However, our study shows that the differences between national legislation and the differences between the legal traditions within the EU are not insignificant and a harmonisation will probably not be enforced without difficulties.

<p>During the later half of the 20th century standard form contracts began to be used more frequently in contract situations. This trend has been consistent and in today’s world numerous commercial parties employ such contracts in their business transactions. The reasons for the extended use of standard form contracts are the benefits that can be obtained for the parties such as time efficiency, effectiveness and price advantages. Standardised contracts often regulate certain issues of the contract for example the way of delivery, remedies and complaints. The definition of such contracts is corresponding in Sweden and England as contracts containing in advance standardised terms with an aim to be used similarly in contract situations with most clients or customers.</p><p>As the usage of standard form contracts increased, the number of unfair contract terms also enhanced. Therefore, the legislative powers in Sweden and England realised that the rules concerning the freedom of contract had to be restricted and governed. As a result, the legislative powers introduced an open control device through statutory control. This was done in Sweden in 1976 with the enforcement of Section 36 of the Contracts Act, and in England the year after when UCTA came into force. The statutory control in both Sweden and England makes it possible to appraise the fairness of exemption clauses. The statutory control is not identical in the two states. UCTA only concerns exclusion clauses and limitation clauses regarding contract terms and non-contractual notices. In Sweden, on the other hand, there is a general doctrine of unfairness and Section 36 of the Contracts Act can set aside all kinds of agreements.</p><p>The statutory control is complemented by indirect means of controlling the content of a contract through non statutory methods. The non statutory methods are concerned with the incorporation, interpretation and construction of clauses in a contract. To be valid and for a party to be able to rely on a term it must have been incorporated into the contract. The rules concerning the interpretation of standard form contracts and exclusion clauses are also of great importance. In both states the approach held is that the statutory control should be used preferably over the indirect control means, though the indirect means still has a prominent role in England through common law. Both England and Sweden agree on that the weaker party in a contract situation is in a greater need of protection by the rules of law in unfair contract situations. However unfairness can only arise if the superior party has wrongfully used the exclusion clause.</p><p>Our study shows the differences between Swedish and English contract law that can result in difficulties in the harmonisation process. These differences concern the test of reasonableness of exemption clauses, the doctrine of good faith, the legal effects and to what extent the indirect means of control should be applied. The Swedish test of reasonableness may include all relevant circumstances irrespective of the time of their occurrence, before or after the entry of the contract. The courts in England are limited to circumstances that have occurred before the closure of the contract. Section 36 of the Swedish Contracts Act includes a general rule of unfairness applicable to all kinds of contract terms. The rule of unfairness in the UCTA on the other hand, is only applicable to exemption clauses and indemnity clauses and there is no general rule of unfairness in English contract law. Instead the courts rely on indirect means of control, which therefore is of greater importance in English contract law. Finally, adjustments of unfair exemption clauses has a significant role in Swedish contract law, in contrast to English contract law where any adjustment is regarded as an intrusion of the freedom of contract.</p><p>To endorse one of the most important aims of the EU; a well working inner market, discussions commenced in 2001. The discussions concerned the harmonisation of the contract law within the union. The questions that arose were whether or not it was possible at all to form a European common contract law and if so, what the effects would be. An action plan was developed by the Commission and today both the EU Parliament and the Council are positive in regard to the continuing work with a reference frame. The Commission aims to pass the reference frame in 2009. Since the EU member states are diverse and have different legal systems a harmonisation of the contract law could cause difficulties. There are differences concerning legal traditions and legal values, hence the legal expertise in Europe is divided in the harmonisation question.</p><p>The following study aims to analyse the existing rules of law in Sweden and England representing two diverse legal systems existing in Europe; civil law and common law. The focus of this study regards the control of exclusion clauses in standard form contracts in both legal systems. The comparison will then be used to analyse the fundamental question if the harmonisation of contract law in the EU is feasible. Specific areas within the contract law have already been harmonised, which shows a possibility to coordinate common law and civil law. Directive 93/13/EEC on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts is one example of harmonised contract law in the EU and the principles in PECL is another example which shows that it is possible to coordinate common law and civil law. A harmonisation of the contract law will probably promote the commerce within the union and be the next step towards one of the most prominent goals of the EU, namely a well functioning common market. However, our study shows that the differences between national legislation and the differences between the legal traditions within the EU are not insignificant and a harmonisation will probably not be enforced without difficulties.</p>

Ansvarsbegränsningsklausuler används i rådgivningsavtal för att begränsa rådgivarens riskexponering för det fall klienten åsamkas skada till följd av rådgivningen. I vilken mån kan då sådana ansvarsbegränsningar upprätthållas i avtalet? För utreda rättsläget har uppsatsen utgått från en analys av vilka särskilda omständigheter domstolar inrymmer i sin oskälighetsbedömning av sådana avtalsvillkor vid en prövning enligt 36 § AvtL. Svaret på frågan har visat sig vara beroende av att försöka upprätthålla en balans mellan principen om avtalsfrihet och pacta sunt servanda, och domstolarnas behov av att motverka oskälighet i avtalsförhållandena. Utgångspunkten för bedömningen enligt 36 § AvtL har varit om ansvarsbegränsningen ansetts utgöra en rimlig riskavvägning mellan parterna. Traditionellt har hanteringen av ansvarsbegränsningar skett på det sätt varigenom grov vårdslöshet ovillkorligen har ansetts leda till genombrott av avtalsvillkoret. Resultatet blir då binärt eftersom ansvarsbegränsningen endast kan bedömas som giltig eller ogiltig. Av den anledningen möjliggör 36 § AvtL för en mer flexibel bedömning som anpassats efter omständigheterna i det enskilda fallet. Vilka omständigheter som kan beaktas vid riskavvägningen har blivit offentligt sedan ett skiljedomsavgörande mellan Profilgruppen och KPMG klandrats. Skiljenämndens hantering av den avtalade ansvarsbegränsningen och hur prövningen enligt 36 § AvtL kan gå till återkom under föregående år i prejudikatet NJA 2022 s. 354. Utredningen i uppsatsen har visat att avtalade ansvarsbegränsningar i rådgivningsavtal kan upprätthållas i den mån villkoret inte utgör en orimlig riskavvägning mellan avtalsparterna. Vid en sådan riskavvägning är en rådgivares befogade intresse av skydd mot vårdslösa misstag och förbiseenden av betydelse. För att avgöra om rådgivaren haft ett sådant befogat intresse av skydd ska vidare ett antal omständigheter inverka på bedömningen. Främst ska beaktas med vilken grad av oaktsamhet som rådgivaren utfört sitt uppdrag, liksom vilka försäkringsmöjligheter som båda avtalsparterna haft och vilket centralt åtagande som rådgivaren åsidosatt. Även ansvarsbegränsningens förhållande till rådgivarens arvode har visat sig inverka på bedömningen för om riskavvägningen mellan parterna ska anses som rimlig. / Limitations of liability are common features in contracts used by professional advisors to restrict the advisor's risk exposure in the event the advisor would be liable for damages incurred by the client as a consequence of the service rendered under the contract. The purpose of this paper is to analyze to what extent such provisions may be upheld. In order to analyze the legal position, this paper mainly focus on section 36 of the Contracts Act, which provides that a contract term or condition may be modified or set aside if such term or condition is unconscionable, and case law addressing which circumstances that are of relevance when applying section 36 of the Contracts Act. The analysis in this paper shows that the key issue is the balance between the interest of upholding the principle of freedom of contract, including pacta sunt servanda, and the interest of taking actions against unfair contract terms. The starting point when applying section 36 of the Contract Acts is to assess whether or not the limitations of liability are deemed to constitute a reasonable allocation of risk between the parties. The prevailing view has previously been that the provisions regarding limitations of liability may only be set aside in the event of wilful misconduct or gross negligence. As a consequence, such provisions have either been set aside in its entirety or upheld. However, when applying section 36 of the Contracts Act, all circumstances of relevance are to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The legal position in this regard have become somewhat clearer since an arbitral award involving Profilgruppen and KPMG was challenged and thus became public. The preceding year, in a different case, the Swedish Supreme Court rendered a ruling in a case referred to as NJA 2022 s. 354 where the claimant challenged provisions regarding limitations of liability based on section 36 of the Contracts Act. A conclusion in this paper is that the Supreme Court's ruling is consistent with, and was influenced by, the reasoning of the arbitral tribunal. The main conclusion in this paper is that provisions regarding limitations of liability which are used by professional advisors may be upheld to the extent they are not deemed to constitute an unreasonable allocation of risk between the parties. The professional advisor's interest of limiting its liability for damages in the event of errors and oversights must be considered and taking into account. However, an overall assessment must be made and all circumstances of relevance are to be considered. In particular, the extent of the advisor's negligence must be taken into account and it must be considered whether or 4 not the advisor has failed to perform a fundamental undertaking. It is also relevant to consider the parties' ability to take out an insurance policy. In addition, the analysis in this paper indicates that the fees payable to the advisor in relation to the limitations of liability are relevant to consider when determining if the allocation of risk between the parties is reasonable.