<p>When Swedish authorities are to purchase or rent something, public procurement is used as a means to an end. Authorities as well as suppliers are subjects to the fact that Swedish law regarding public procurement regulates the form of procurement in one set of particular regulations (LOU) and the form of contracts in another set of general regulations (AvtL). Suppliers and purchasing authorities close a contract regarding the subject of procurement and the law of public procurement regulates when such a contract can be closed, simultaneously the law of contracts regulates when parties are held to contracts and when contracts are to be rescinded. I investigate in this essay what these two types of regulations can result in for the contracting parties. As it is today agreements that have been entered into wrongfully still are valid, even if a court of law nullifies the procurement and sentences the purchasing authority to make a new public procurement. This state of things is currently causing contractual difficulties for parties in such circumstances. My investigation leads me to the conclusion that the law of public procurement should regulate, by a defeasance clause, agreements and contracts that has been entered and closed in a wrongful way; hence making such agreements invalid.</p>

When Swedish authorities are to purchase or rent something, public procurement is used as a means to an end. Authorities as well as suppliers are subjects to the fact that Swedish law regarding public procurement regulates the form of procurement in one set of particular regulations (LOU) and the form of contracts in another set of general regulations (AvtL). Suppliers and purchasing authorities close a contract regarding the subject of procurement and the law of public procurement regulates when such a contract can be closed, simultaneously the law of contracts regulates when parties are held to contracts and when contracts are to be rescinded. I investigate in this essay what these two types of regulations can result in for the contracting parties. As it is today agreements that have been entered into wrongfully still are valid, even if a court of law nullifies the procurement and sentences the purchasing authority to make a new public procurement. This state of things is currently causing contractual difficulties for parties in such circumstances. My investigation leads me to the conclusion that the law of public procurement should regulate, by a defeasance clause, agreements and contracts that has been entered and closed in a wrongful way; hence making such agreements invalid.