Sammanfattning Av störst vikt vid en företagsförvärvsprocess är huruvida säljaren och köparen reglerar sina ansvarsområden och bestämmer gränser för riskövergången i köpeavtalet. Ur rättsäkerhetssynpunkt är det essentiellt att kunna förutsäga och identifiera riskerna redan vid avtalsslutet. Det ligger ofta i parternas intresse att så långt som möjligt reglera förutsättningarna redan vid ingående och utformning av ett köpeavtal. Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka samspelet och följden av att säljaren inför garantiutfästelser i ett köpeavtal kontra resultatet av att köparen faktiskt genomför en due diligence-undersökning innan ett köpeavtal kommer till stånd. Detta genomförs med utgångspunkt i diskussionen kring riskfördelning mellan avtalsparterna, köplagens regler om säljarens upplysningsplikt, köparens undersökningsplikt och den allmänna lojalitetsplikten som åligger avtalsparter. Utgångspunkten vid formuleringen av avtal mellan parterna anses vara det köprättsliga felbegreppet med dess utgångspunkt i köparens befogade förväntningar på det överlåtna objektet. En genomförd due diligence och införande av garantier i köpeavtal kan innebära att riskövergången regleras och de befogade förväntningarna preciseras vilket leder till förutsägbarhet och säkerhet för parterna att kunna förutse eventuella framtida risker. Det föreslås att due diligence görs till en absolut undersökningsplikt eftersom det skulle kunna minska antalet framtida tvister mellan avtalsparter. Due diligence utgör ett förebyggande sätt att identifiera och kvantifiera risk. Garantin är däremot ett reaktivt sätt att försöka allokera risk. Det konstateras att det inte föreligger någon konkurrens mellan due diligence och garantier i fråga om uppdelning av risksfärer. Dessa kompletterar varandra då de verkar på olika stadier i förvärvsprocessen och har olika utgångspunkter. / Abstract The regulation of the areas of responsibility of the seller and the buyer and the definition of the location of risk in the contract of acquisition is of a greatest importance during a process of business transfer. It is essential to predict and identify the risks already at the moment of conclusion of the contract due to the reason of the fact of legal certainty. It always is the interest of both parties to, as far as possible, carefully regulate the conditions and the formulation of the contract. The purpose of this paper is to examine the interaction and the result of the fact that the seller introduces warranties in the contract versus the due diligence investigation performed by the buyer prior to the content of the contract is reached. The basis of the discussion is concentrated on the questions of the allocation of the risk between the parties, the rules in the Swedish sale of Goods Act about the obligation of the buyer to investigate the object of the contract, the duty to give the relevant information of the seller, and even the general duty of loyalty imposed on the contracting parties. The fundamental basis for the regulation of the contract is the definition of the defect of the object of acquisition and the reasonable expectations of the buyer regarding the object. The due diligence and the implementation of warranties in the contract may significate that the risks are regulated and the reasonable expectations are stated which leads to the predictability and certainty for the parties so that the parties can be able to avoid the risks in the future. I suggest that the due diligence should be an absolute duty to investigate the object of acquisition because it could reduce the number of future disputes between the contracting parties. The due diligence is a proactive way to identify and quantify risk. The warranties are however a reactive way of trying to allocate the risk. Finally there is no competition between the due diligence and the warranties rather they compose a complement to each other.

In recent years the popularity of Islamic insurance policies has grown rapidly with many companies across the world providing this service. London is said to be the hub for Islamic finance. It is well known for welcoming innovative financial methods. The FSA have already authorised the insurance company Salaam Halal to provide policies based on Shariah principles. The FSA, however, announced that they must operate within the same legal framework as all other insurance policies. Consequently English law has to be applied in Islamic policies taken in this country. However, in many aspects, Shariah principles contradict English insurance law. This thesis aims to discover how they contradict and recommend how the Islamic insurance policies can be applied in English law without breaking Shariah principles. As Shariah principles merely provide a wide boundary within which any law can be applied, this thesis analyses English insurance law first, and then discusses how Islamic insurance policies can operate within the English framework. In many cases, English insurance law crosses the boundary of Shairah principles due to its unfair consequences. Consequently making English insurance law fairer could be the best solution to allow the use of Islamic insurance policies under English law. Pragmatically, the thesis focuses mainly on problems within current English insurance law and recommends possible solutions. In many cases, the solutions suggested by the Law Commission are found to be incapable of establishing fairness. The majority part of this thesis is spent trying to establish a fairer framework for English insurance law. This fairer English insurance law is found to be Shariah compliant in most cases. In some cases it is not complaint due to operational differences between the two legal systems. In these cases, the thesis recommends that the Islamic insurer should incorporate certain terms to make policies Shariah compliant without breaching English insurance law.