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.

Social media has become an integral part of modern day society and occupies a substantial part of peoples’ lives. At the same time companies are exploring new and effective ways to reach consumers. This has resulted in the marketing strategy called influencer marketing and Sweden’s first legal case concerning commercial content published by an influencer on social media. Although the case is in its adolescence and has been appealed, it is still of great interest to analyse and investigate further. This is achieved by conducting an empirical study of similar cases published by the self-regulatory organisation called The Swedish Advertising Ombudsman. Furthermore, legal reasoning and arguments from relevant German cases will be compared to and analysed with the Swedish case in order to gain a wider perspective and a deeper understanding. It is clear that commercial content published by influencers on social media should be subject to the same strict requirements as other commercial messages. Especially since the content derives from physical persons, i.e. influencers, the commercial connection must be clear and conspicuously disclosed unless it is already obvious from the context of the communication. The purposes of the social platforms vary and might not always functionally allow or make it possible to communicate a clear and understandable commercial context without having it disclosed. By cause of that, one of the arguments this thesis makes is that disclosing the commercial connection in a clear and conspicuous way should be the principal rule on social media. The other option should be avoided, as the risk of misleading consumers is too great.

The Supreme Court’s most important task today is probably to, through their precedent, lead the legislative development forward and to ensure that the legislature and the standards that the legislature subsequently creates are compatible with the constitutional and EU law. In that sense, the Supreme Court also creates its own standards. Now and then the district courts, with the parties, in an action amenable to out-of-court settlement, identifies a point of law that has not been answered neither in the legislative history nor by court practice. In those cases, it could be favourable for the legal process if the parties had the option to ask the Supreme Court to answer the question, instead of going through the court hierarchy to get the matter resolved. This would favour all parties since both costs and time can be saved. Since July 1, 1989, this is a possibility. According to chapter 56 article 13 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure, a district court can, with the consent of the parties, submit a particular issue in the case for decision by the Supreme Court. The provision is discretionary, which means that it is the district court that determines if the rule should be applied. The issue in question must however be a precedent issue. In the end, it is the Supreme Court that has the final say and decides whether leave to appeal should be permitted or not. The purpose of the provisions origin was to strengthen the Supreme Court’s precedent-forming role without largely burdening the court’s workload. After the advent in 1989, only 37 cases have taken the leap to the Supreme Court which is probably far fewer than it was hoped for. The reason for this may be that the institute, despite the fact that the possibility soon has existed for 30 years, is still relatively unknown. Another reason may be that district courts are, and have been, reluctant to propose to use it, even when the possibility has arisen. Therefore, I believe that a first step to tackle the precedent drought that still exists could be to make the parties and their legal representatives more aware of the possibility, and also to encourage the district courts to, to a greater extent than today, take the initiative and propose the submitting to the Supreme Court. If this does not result in more” leap-cases”, another resort could be to also include arbitration in the regulation.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

<p>By the time the law of preferential right was legislated the purpose of the law was to give all creditors equal rights. The purpose of this master’s thesis is to analyze the law in force and unravel whether the purpose of the law has been fulfilled or not. If a deviation has been made I will decide whether it can be justified.</p><p>Since 1st of January 2004 the preferential right regarding taxes has been abolished. Since then the claims of the Government do not have any preferential right. Wages still have a preferential right. Since the law of the Governmental wage guarantee was legislated the Government now pays the workers claims and then take over the preferential right regarding wages.</p><p>When a company has gone bankrupt there is a possibility to apply recovery in order to bring back property to the bankrupt’s estate Regarding the Government’s claims regarding taxes, recovery is prohibited.</p><p>There is a regulation in the criminal code called favouritism of creditors which is related to the rules of recovery. The criteria in order to break this regulation are the same as regarding the rules of recovery. This leads to that if a debtor pays the Government the debtor does not break the regulation in the criminal code.</p><p>In addition to this the Government has an opportunity to receive payment by using the regulation called the legal representative’s responsibility. This regulation means that the legal representative of a company is obliged to pay the company’s taxes if the company is not able to.</p><p>By this I draw the conclusion that the purpose of the law of preferential right has not been fulfilled. By looking at the regulations I come to the conclusion that the Government has an advantage that no other creditor will be able to achieve. The workers are the only creditors, despite the Government, who are guaranteed payment through the Governmental wage guarantee. This is a deviation which, according to me is justified because of the fact that workers have a greater need for protection than other creditors. There is also a need to have a division in the law of preferential right because every claim has arisen in a different way. The advantage of the Government is, according to me, not justified because this leads to the fact that the Government is the only creditor except workers who is considered being in need of protection.</p> / <p>Vid instiftandet av FRL var syftet med lagen att alla borgenärer skulle ha lika rätt. Syftet med min uppsats är att utreda gällande rätt för att avgöra om FRL: s syfte blivit uppfyllt. Om avsteg från lagens syfte skett skall jag dessutom avgöra om dessa varit motiverade.</p><p>Den 1 januari 2004 avskaffades förmånsrätten för skatter och avgifter. Därefter övergick statens skattefordringar till att bli oprioriterade fordringar. Fortfarande föreligger förmånsrätt för lönefordringar. Efter instiftandet av den statliga lönegarantin betalar staten arbetstagarnas lönefordringar och inträder därefter i arbetstagarnas ställe avseende förmånsrätten.</p><p>I en konkurs finns möjlighet att tillämpa återvinning för att föra tillbaka tillgångar till konkursboet. För statens fordringar avseende skatter och avgifter finns det ingen möjlighet till återvinning utan för dessa fordringar föreligger ett återvinningsförbud.</p><p>I nära relation till återvinningsreglerna finns en bestämmelse i BrB, mannamån mot borgenärer. Kriterierna för att dömas för mannamån mot borgenärer är desamma som för att kunna återvinna en betalning till konkursboet. Detta innebär att en betalning till staten inte kan leda till mannamånsbrott.</p><p>Därutöver har staten en möjlighet att erhålla betalning genom ett ställföreträdaransvar vilket återfinns i SBL. Detta betalningsansvar drabbar ett företags företrädare vid uteblivna skattebetalningar.</p><p>Min slutsats är att syftet med FRL inte blivit uppfyllt. En sammanvägning av de olika lagreglerna leder till en slutsats att staten har en fördel som ingen annan borgenär kommer att uppnå. Arbetstagarna är den enda borgenär utöver staten som är garanterad betalning genom lönegarantin. Detta är enligt min uppfattning ett avsteg som är motiverat av den anledning att arbetstagare har ett högre skyddsvärde än vad till exempel leverantörer eller staten har. Uppdelningen i FRL mellan olika förmånsrätter är nödvändig eftersom fordringar tillkommit på olika sätt. Däremot anser jag att de avsteg som görs från FRL: s syfte vad gäller statens fördelar inte är motiverade eftersom det leder till att staten är den enda borgenär utöver arbetstagarna som har ett skyddsvärde.</p>

By the time the law of preferential right was legislated the purpose of the law was to give all creditors equal rights. The purpose of this master’s thesis is to analyze the law in force and unravel whether the purpose of the law has been fulfilled or not. If a deviation has been made I will decide whether it can be justified. Since 1st of January 2004 the preferential right regarding taxes has been abolished. Since then the claims of the Government do not have any preferential right. Wages still have a preferential right. Since the law of the Governmental wage guarantee was legislated the Government now pays the workers claims and then take over the preferential right regarding wages. When a company has gone bankrupt there is a possibility to apply recovery in order to bring back property to the bankrupt’s estate Regarding the Government’s claims regarding taxes, recovery is prohibited. There is a regulation in the criminal code called favouritism of creditors which is related to the rules of recovery. The criteria in order to break this regulation are the same as regarding the rules of recovery. This leads to that if a debtor pays the Government the debtor does not break the regulation in the criminal code. In addition to this the Government has an opportunity to receive payment by using the regulation called the legal representative’s responsibility. This regulation means that the legal representative of a company is obliged to pay the company’s taxes if the company is not able to. By this I draw the conclusion that the purpose of the law of preferential right has not been fulfilled. By looking at the regulations I come to the conclusion that the Government has an advantage that no other creditor will be able to achieve. The workers are the only creditors, despite the Government, who are guaranteed payment through the Governmental wage guarantee. This is a deviation which, according to me is justified because of the fact that workers have a greater need for protection than other creditors. There is also a need to have a division in the law of preferential right because every claim has arisen in a different way. The advantage of the Government is, according to me, not justified because this leads to the fact that the Government is the only creditor except workers who is considered being in need of protection. / Vid instiftandet av FRL var syftet med lagen att alla borgenärer skulle ha lika rätt. Syftet med min uppsats är att utreda gällande rätt för att avgöra om FRL: s syfte blivit uppfyllt. Om avsteg från lagens syfte skett skall jag dessutom avgöra om dessa varit motiverade. Den 1 januari 2004 avskaffades förmånsrätten för skatter och avgifter. Därefter övergick statens skattefordringar till att bli oprioriterade fordringar. Fortfarande föreligger förmånsrätt för lönefordringar. Efter instiftandet av den statliga lönegarantin betalar staten arbetstagarnas lönefordringar och inträder därefter i arbetstagarnas ställe avseende förmånsrätten. I en konkurs finns möjlighet att tillämpa återvinning för att föra tillbaka tillgångar till konkursboet. För statens fordringar avseende skatter och avgifter finns det ingen möjlighet till återvinning utan för dessa fordringar föreligger ett återvinningsförbud. I nära relation till återvinningsreglerna finns en bestämmelse i BrB, mannamån mot borgenärer. Kriterierna för att dömas för mannamån mot borgenärer är desamma som för att kunna återvinna en betalning till konkursboet. Detta innebär att en betalning till staten inte kan leda till mannamånsbrott. Därutöver har staten en möjlighet att erhålla betalning genom ett ställföreträdaransvar vilket återfinns i SBL. Detta betalningsansvar drabbar ett företags företrädare vid uteblivna skattebetalningar. Min slutsats är att syftet med FRL inte blivit uppfyllt. En sammanvägning av de olika lagreglerna leder till en slutsats att staten har en fördel som ingen annan borgenär kommer att uppnå. Arbetstagarna är den enda borgenär utöver staten som är garanterad betalning genom lönegarantin. Detta är enligt min uppfattning ett avsteg som är motiverat av den anledning att arbetstagare har ett högre skyddsvärde än vad till exempel leverantörer eller staten har. Uppdelningen i FRL mellan olika förmånsrätter är nödvändig eftersom fordringar tillkommit på olika sätt. Däremot anser jag att de avsteg som görs från FRL: s syfte vad gäller statens fördelar inte är motiverade eftersom det leder till att staten är den enda borgenär utöver arbetstagarna som har ett skyddsvärde.