No description available.

No description available.

When a company is part of an agreement there is a risk that one of the collaborators pursues similar business and takes up competition with the partner or chooses to reveal information about their partner to other parties. To avoid this, companies establish a confidentiality agreement that prohibits the parties to reveal any information. Confidentiality agreements that are eternal have become more common in Swedish contract law in commercial relations. As a result, disputes between collaborators have occurred regarding the unreasonable length and validity of the agreement at a later stage. When a confidentiality agreement is considered to be unreasonable, 36 § of the Swedish contract law (AvtL) can be applicable. The paragraph deals with the legitimacy and the opportunities of re-adjustment of the unreasonable contract. The question is, can a confidentiality agreement that is eternally valid in commercial relations be modified with the support of 36 § AvtL? Pacta sunt servanda is an important principle in Swedish contract law and the confidentiality agreement is no exception. Hence, the duty of fulfilling a contractual obligation is important. The 36 § of AvtL can be applied when an obligation can be considered to be unreasonable. Confidentiality agreements in commercial relations that are eternal can be seen as unreasonable if a partner is inferior or if later occurred relations changes the meaning of an agreement. If information is considered to be an industrial secret it should be classified according to Act on the Protection of Business Secrets (FHL). However, when the information is not any longer regarded as an industrial secret, it can be unreasonable to have a eternal confidentiality agreement. An example of this can be a patent that expires after a certain period of time. Hence the confidentiality agreement should be able to modify, with the support of 36 § AvtL.

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.