<p>The purpose of this essay is to elucidate if there is a liability to damages for cardholders, in case of unauthorized use of bankcards, in the event a liability for payment, according to 34 § the Swedish Law concerning Consumer Credits, should not be established between card issuer and cardholder. The purpose is also to elucidate if card issuing companies, in the event a liability for payment is established between card issuer and cardholder, have any possibility to get a larger sum than is allowed by 34 § the Swedish Law concerning Consumer Credits, by demanding damages from the cardholder. Finally there is a judgement of how a court could do if it wanted to hold a cardholder liable to damages because of unauthorized use of bankcards.</p>

The purpose of this essay is to elucidate if there is a liability to damages for cardholders, in case of unauthorized use of bankcards, in the event a liability for payment, according to 34 § the Swedish Law concerning Consumer Credits, should not be established between card issuer and cardholder. The purpose is also to elucidate if card issuing companies, in the event a liability for payment is established between card issuer and cardholder, have any possibility to get a larger sum than is allowed by 34 § the Swedish Law concerning Consumer Credits, by demanding damages from the cardholder. Finally there is a judgement of how a court could do if it wanted to hold a cardholder liable to damages because of unauthorized use of bankcards.

The purpose of the thesis is to illustrate how payments of damages between companies are treated from a taxation point of view, and to analyse, in a tax law perspective, the consequences that follow the transactions. Furthermore, a comparison is made between damages and transactions similar to damages, such as amicable settlements and fines between companies, to ascertain whether they are treated similar. Finally, there is an analysis of the consequences of taxation of insurances, both premiums and compensations, followed by a comparison with the consequences of taxation of damages.

The thesis consists in two parts. The purpose of the first part is to analyse how the court may interpret rules, principles and legal cases to decide whether a reconstructor bears liability towards the debtor and the creditors. In the second part it is discussed and argued for how the reconstructor´s damage liability should be drawn up and applied so that it according to economic theories should be as efficient as possible. In the thesis it is shown that it is not a non-contractual liability or a liability based on authority mission. The reconstructor´s liability is instead based on a commission concerning an intellectual service. The court is the mandator of the commission, but the debtor must be regarded as the principal. The reconstructor is liable towards the debtors on contractual grounds, the relationship can be considered as equivalent to contract. The reconstrucotr´s liablity does not fall under the limitation rules in HB 18:9 but falls under the limitation rules in Preskriptionslagen. In the second part, dealing with theories of Law and Economics, it is shown that a negligence rule is the most efficient. The reconstructor´s liability, according to the analysis of Swedish law, would thereby be efficient. A problem lies however in the fact that the parties does not know for sure which liability rule that is in force. This is inefficient while it can lead to that the parties observes a too low activity level, observes a too low level of care or take too many, costly, safety measures. This problem can best be solved through a non-mandatory law which allows the parties to rely entirely on the law or to make a contract where the gaps are being covered by the law.

Inom bedömningen av skadeståndsansvar för bolagsledningen och aktieägare enligt 29:1 och 29:3 Aktiebolagslagen, genomförs en oaktsamhetsprövning. Utan oaktsamhet eller uppsåt kan inte ansvar göras gällande. Vad som utgör oaktsamhet saknar direkt definition i lag, utan har bedömts av domstolarna i varje enskilt fall. Då oaktsamhet liksom lagöverträdelser, och åsidosättande av uppdrag, väger tungt vid en ansvarsbedömning, behöver bolagsledningen utöver allmän kunskap om aktuella regler även veta vilken aktsamhet som krävs för att undvika ansvar. I Skatteförfarandelagen 59:12-14 finns liknande ansvarsbestämmelser. Bestämmelserna anger att en företrädare för bolaget kan bli personligt ansvarig för den juridiska personens skatter och avgifter. En ansvarsförutsättning är att det föreligger grov oaktsamhet. Företrädaransvaret inom skatteförfarandelagen, och skadeståndsansvaret utifrån aktiebolagslagen, förutsätter således båda ett oaktsamt handlande i varierande grad. Eftersom två bestämmelser i skiljda regelverk kan medföra ett ingripande ansvar för någon i bolagsledningen, borde en viss kontinuitet fordras i hur oaktsamheten bedöms. Företrädaransvar har enligt praxis visat sig utgå endast genom överträdelsen i sig, d.v.s. de faktiska omständigheterna, i vissa fall har en subjektiv faktor spelat in, och det är insikten. Insikten i bedömningen motsvarar den grova oaktsamheten som förutsätts. Vid skadeståndsansvar bedöms fler faktorer än en insikt för att vanlig oaktsamhet ska föreligga, och utöver oaktsamheten, även andra faktorer för att ansvar sedan ska utgå. Risken för diskrepens inom tillämpningen av dessa ansvarsregler är inget bolagsledningens kan förutspå, och borde därför inte ligga på bolagsledningens axlar. Även om det kan vara svårt att skapa ett fullt ut förenligt system för oaktsamhetsprövning. Borde det kunna förhindras att oförenligheten blir på någons bekostnad. / In assessing the liability of the company management and shareholders of 29:1 and 29:3 in the Swedish Companies Act, a negligent appraisal is required. Without negligence or intent, no one can be held responsible. What constitutes negligence are not directly defined by statute but has been deemed by the courts in each case. When negligence, violations of law, and breaches of mission weighs heavily in a responsible assessment, the senior management needs beyond the general knowledge of current rules also know what prudence required to avoid liability. The tax procedure law 59:12-14 contains similar liability rules. The rules state that a representative of the company may be personally liable for taxes and fees associated with the company. The standard of liability in the Tax procedure law requires gross negligence. The liability regarding taxes and liability on the basis of the Companies Act, therefore both requires negligence is in varying degrees. Since the two provisions in separate regulations may result in an intervening responsibility for any of the senior management, a degree of continuity is needed as to how the negligence is assessed. The liability for taxes has by convention been shown to activate only by the infringement itself, i.e. the facts. In some cases, a subjective factor has played a role, and it is the recognition of the deficient tax payment. This recognition is in the tax-liability assessment equal to the gross negligence required. Liability in accordance with the Swedish Companies Act on the other hand, requires more than recognition to constitute ordinary negligence. In addition to this negligence, other factors are also assessed before actual liability is activated. The risk of discrepancy in the application of liability in two regulations can’t be predicted by the management, and shouldn’t lie on the management's shoulders. While it may be difficult to create a fully compatible system for negligence trial, it should be prevented that the incompatibility is at someone's expense.

Univ., Diss.--Paris 1, 2006.

Univ., Diss.--Zugl.: Orléans, 2005.

published_or_final_version / Public Administration / Master / Master of Public Administration

A theme which currently dominates environmental regulation in Canada is for a strengthening of the "polluter pays" approach to environmental regulation. This trend sees those who impair the environment held increasingly financially responsible for their actions through such mechanisms as a new generation of statutory liabilities which include liability for environmental response and cleanup charges, the requirement of security in the event of environmental contamination, and the creation of statutory civil causes of action designed to assist claimants in recovering for losses resulting from environmental contamination. These mechanisms are supplemented by an increasing willingness by the courts to give serious consideration to innovative new approaches by private claimants to hold polluters civilly accountable for toxic tort related claims. As a result, those in Canada with potential exposure to this new generation of environmental liabilities will inevitably turn to the insurance industry for coverage. Ironically, it is these same new liabilities which will make it increasingly difficult for insurers to provide the desired coverage. Further, in the event that such coverage is provided, insurers will be required to be especially diligent in evaluating and delineating those environmental risks which they are prepared to cover. Many industrial and commercial enterprises will require environmental impairment insurance in order to carry out operations subject to environmental risk. Insurers providing environmental insurance in this context will effectively find themselves cast into the somewhat unlikely role of environmental regulators within Canadian society. For more than fifty years the insurance industry in Canada has provided a wide range of insurance products for liability resulting from impairment of the natural environment. In developing and marketing environmental impairment insurance products the insurance industry has primarily relied upon the risk-based analysis which it has historically utilized to provide coverage for more traditional insurance products such as fire, automobile, and marine insurance. However, it is submitted that the attempts by the industry to provide environmental impairment insurance has been fraught with problems, and the success of the products which have been provided has been limited. This in turn raises serious questions as to the ability of the insurance industry to assume responsibility for the regulation of environmental impairment in the future. It is the primary hypothesis of this thesis that the insurance industry has experienced significant difficulties in providing environmental impairment liability insurance in Canada, and that these difficulties are due in large part to the inability of the industry to accurately predict the incidence of loss associated with environmental impairment in Canada. Further, the difficulties with prediction experienced by the insurance industry are primarily the result of its failure to take into account perceptions of environmental risk by the Canadian public and by environmental decision-makers. Finally, this inability to accurately predict has been accompanied by the failure of the insurance industry to recognize the problem, resulting in overconfidence by the industry with respect to its environmental impairment liability products.

In 1992, the Americans completed its withdrawal from the Philippines, ending almost a century of U.S. military presence. However, it was soon discovered that the U.S. left behind several contaminated sites at its former military bases in the Philippines due to inadequate hazardous waste management. It appears that the U.S. Department of Defense failed to implement clear and consistent environmental policies at Clark and Subic. The U.S. maintains that it is under no obligation to undertake further cleanup at its former installations inasmuch as the Philippines has waived its right to do so under the basing agreement. It will be argued that the Philippines made no such waiver under the Manglapus-Schultz Agreement. Thus, the U.S. remains responsible under international law for the resulting environmental damage at its former bases. States have the responsibility under customary international law to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other states. A state will be responsible if it breaches this international obligation. It will be argued that the U.S. breached its obligation under international law when activities within its effective control caused significant environmental damage to areas forming part of Philippine territory. Such a breach may also result in the violation of the emerging right to a healthy environment. Existing human rights, such as the right to life and health, right to food and water, right to a safe and healthy working environment and right to information, will be applied from an environmental perspective to determine whether the Filipinos' right to a healthy environment was violated. While a legal claim can be made for the remediation of the environment and compensation of the victims, it will be argued that existing mechanisms for the settlement and adjudication of international claims are inadequate. States are generally reluctant to submit to the jurisdiction of international tribunals and most of these fora do not allow non-state entities to appear before them. Thus, it would be argued that the most promising approach may well be through political and diplomatic means.