En uppsats som behandlar obehörig vinst och dess tillämpning i svensk rätt idag. Från att ha  varit ett kritiserat institut i den svenska juridiken har den de senaste åren fått mer genomslag och en mer accepterad status.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The legal conception and methodology developed by the Historical School of Jurisprudence had a strong impact on Swedish legal scholars in the 19th century, influencing the legal faculties at the universities as well as the drafting of private law legislation. In his seminal work System des heutigen römischen Rechts Friedrich Carl von Savigny, the figurehead of the Historical School, used the terms legal relations and legal institutions as core concepts, distinguishing between the natural institutions of family law and the artificial institutions of private law. These terms were used in a similar capacity to how Friedrich Julius Stahl, a decade earlier, had used them in his work on legal philosophy, Die Philosophie des Rechts nach geschichtlicher Ansicht. The distinction between natural and artificial institutions has been criticized as an unhistorical abstraction and as a necessary precondition for the subsequent development of conceptual jurisprudence. This thesis investigates the relation between natural and artificial institutions, as well as the function and meaning of the artificial institutions in the legal system and the reasoning of the courts. The thesis proposes a spectrum ranging from natural to artificial as an analytical framework. Through a historical and dogmatic analysis of three legal institutions different aspects of the artificial character of legal institutions are presented. The analysis of the legal institution of stoppage in transitu shows that a natural institution based on customary law over time can evolve into an artificial institution, far removed from the concrete circumstances in which it developed. This is the case with stoppage in transitu in Swedish law. The analysis of the legal institution of culpa in contrahendo shows that it originated in a legal remedy theorized by Rudolf von Jhering and gained authority through court practice over time until it was codified in German law. By contrast, the use of culpa in contrahendo in Swedish law has declined over time and been functionally replaced by a general principle of good faith. Though the institution has not been made obsolete, it is now generally regarded as a specific expression of the good faith principle. The analysis of the legal institution of unjust enrichment shows that in contrast to the continental civil law systems, Nordic and Swedish legal scholars have generally been firmly opposed and highly critical of its application. There are provisions stipulating compensation based on unjust enrichment in several different laws and it has been used in the reasoning of the Supreme Court, but the prevailing opinion among legal scholars has been that such an institution doesn’t exist in Swedish law. In the last thirty years, essentially a new generation of legal scholars has acknowledged the existence of unjust enrichment in Swedish law. From the results of the historical analysis artificial institutions can be understood as abstract systematic units with a core normative content expressed in technical-legal language. Their function in the legal system is to bridge the gap between fundamental ethic norms inherent in the system and individual legal relations for which no rule exists. The natural or artificial character of institutions can only be determined in relative terms, and in the evolution of a specific legal institution this character is not fixed, but subject to gradual change.  In the reasoning of the court the analyzed artificial institutions are mainly used as a vehicle for legal analogies or as an argument to determine if a proposed analogy is justified. These arguments are routinely based on legal doctrine and prior court praxis, and only occasionally cites preparatory works or legislation. In the reasoning of the court, invoking artificial institutions are a means of solving hard cases by creating new rules which are formally coherent.

<p>Unjustified enrichment is used as legal basis when a part claims compensation. Unjustified enrichment can be illustrated as: (A) made a profit on someone else’s loss (B) and if the profit is"unjustified"and has"no legal basis"it shall be returned, which then make it possible for B to claim compensation from A referring to the profit. B has in this case lost something that he owns. To be able to claim A for compensation must the loss of B also be a benefit for A. The purpose with this rule is to equalize the transaction between A and B with the benefit for A as basis. </p><p>This thesis takes German law as starting point to find out whether unjustified enrichment can be considered a general legal principal that also can be used in different branches of law and if it can not be considered a general legal principal to discuss if unjustified enrichment should be such a principle. Differences between unjustified enrichment in the Swedish and German legal system has been detected. Inter alia that the courts in Sweden are not bound to follow the properties transformation and fusion with other properties when they try a situation that is to be solved under the principle of unjustified enrichment. </p><p>The Swedish doctrine is doubtful to give unjustified enrichment validity in contract law. A conclusion that can be questioned because of the fact that Swedish case law uses unjustified enrichment as a general legal principle also in cases that includes contract law. Another fact that is important is that unjustified enrichment in other European Union memberstates have given unjustified enrichment validity also in contract law and when it has that status the EC-court can use it in cases, cases that have an impact on Sweden. Unjustified enrichment has in Sweden been considered diffuse and that it often occurs evidence difficulties. This problems are considered to hurt predictability and therefore also the rule of law. This also is questioned by the author because unjustified enrichment can be used when a mild form of compensation is suitable. With the profit as starting point will the winner not leave the dispute in a worse situation as if it never occurred.</p>

Unjustified enrichment is used as legal basis when a part claims compensation. Unjustified enrichment can be illustrated as: (A) made a profit on someone else’s loss (B) and if the profit is"unjustified"and has"no legal basis"it shall be returned, which then make it possible for B to claim compensation from A referring to the profit. B has in this case lost something that he owns. To be able to claim A for compensation must the loss of B also be a benefit for A. The purpose with this rule is to equalize the transaction between A and B with the benefit for A as basis. This thesis takes German law as starting point to find out whether unjustified enrichment can be considered a general legal principal that also can be used in different branches of law and if it can not be considered a general legal principal to discuss if unjustified enrichment should be such a principle. Differences between unjustified enrichment in the Swedish and German legal system has been detected. Inter alia that the courts in Sweden are not bound to follow the properties transformation and fusion with other properties when they try a situation that is to be solved under the principle of unjustified enrichment. The Swedish doctrine is doubtful to give unjustified enrichment validity in contract law. A conclusion that can be questioned because of the fact that Swedish case law uses unjustified enrichment as a general legal principle also in cases that includes contract law. Another fact that is important is that unjustified enrichment in other European Union memberstates have given unjustified enrichment validity also in contract law and when it has that status the EC-court can use it in cases, cases that have an impact on Sweden. Unjustified enrichment has in Sweden been considered diffuse and that it often occurs evidence difficulties. This problems are considered to hurt predictability and therefore also the rule of law. This also is questioned by the author because unjustified enrichment can be used when a mild form of compensation is suitable. With the profit as starting point will the winner not leave the dispute in a worse situation as if it never occurred.

2010 lämnade EU-domstolen ett förhandsavgörande i mål C-88/09 Graphic Procédé gällande huruvida vissa tryckeriprodukter ska anses utgöra varor eller tjänster enligt EU:s mervärdesskattedirektiv. Domen innebar för svensk lagstiftning att mervärdesskattesatsen för vissa tryckeriprodukter sänktes från 25 procent till 6 procent. Konsekvensen blev att skatteverket fick återbetala miljonbelopp till svenska tryckerier på grund av att de redovisat för hög mervärdesskatt. Skatteverket godtog återbetalning till tryckerierna utan att kreditering till tryckerikunder krävdes. Skatteverket bestämde sig för att efterbeskatta tryckerikunderna genom följdändring med motsvarande belopp som tryckeriet erhållit i återbetalning. Frågan kom att prövas av HFD. HFD ansåg att kriterierna för följdändring är uppfyllda och att efterbeskattning inte är uppenbart oskäligt. HFD:s dom bygger på antagandet att tryckerikunderna har en civilrättslig fordran på tryckerierna. Syftet med uppsatsen är att utreda konsekvenserna av HFD:s bedömning avseende följdändringsbestämmelsen och oskälighetsrekvisitet i 66 kap. 27 § 4 p. a) och 66 kap. 28 § Skatteförfarandelag (2011:1224). HFD har genom sin dom i tryckerimomsmålen utvidgat möjligheten att efterbeskatta genom följdändring. Domen brister i rättssäkerhet med anledning av HFD:s opreciserade domskäl. Det föreligger ett osäkert rättsläge avseende huruvida tryckerikunden har en civilrättslig fordran på tryckeriet, varför HFD:s antagande även i detta avseende brister ur rättsäkerhetperspektiv. Det finns dock ett visst stöd för antagandet att det föreligger en fordran enligt 36 § AvtL, principerna om condictio indebiti och obehörig vinst. Oavsett om HD klargör rättsläget angående fordrans existens har HFD:s bedömning orsakat ekonomiska bördor för tryckerikunder som är oförsvarliga ur rättssäkerhetsperspektiv. / In 2010 the CoJ submitted a preliminary ruling in C-88/09 Graphic Procédé regarding whether certain printing products should be considered as goods or services in accordance with the VAT Directive. The implication of the ruling for Swedish legislation was that the tax rate for certain printing product was reduced from 25 to 6 percent. The consequence was that the tax office had to repay millions of Swedish crowns to printing houses because the VAT payments had been too high. The Tax Agency repaid the VAT without demanding that the printing houses issued a credit note to their customers. Due to their repayments, the Tax Agency reclaimed the incorrectly charged VAT from the printing houses’ customers. The issue came to be considered by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court (the court). It considered that the criteria for reclaiming VAT was met and that the reclaiment is not evidently unreasonable. The court's judgment is based on the assumption that the customers have a claim on the printing houses. The purpose of the thesis is to investigate the consequences of the court's judgment concerning additional tax assessment and the criterion of unreasonableness. The court’s judgment has led to extended possibilities to make additional assessment.  The judgment fails in legal certainty due to its unspecified grounds. There is an uncertain legal position as to whether the customers has a claim against the printing house, which is why the court's assumption in this matter lacks of legal certainty. However, there is some support for the assumption that there is a claim under § 36 AvtL, the principles of condictio indebiti and unjust enrichment. Irrespective of whether the Supreme Court will clarify the legal situation regarding the claim, the court's judgment has caused economic burdens for customers that are inexcusable from a legal certainty perspective.

No description available.

No description available.