The economic analysis of building contracts is an unexplored field within Law and Economics. This paper makes an attempt to cast some light over the subject and encourage to more research within the field. The main purpose has been to describe why the actual price in a public construction project often turns out to be higher than the contract price and offer a way of handle that risk. In the paper a model is set up that shows an optimal contract given expectations on actual price and gaps in contracts. Cost increases for the buyer can mainly be explained by two situations.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the method called zero recognition that is used in accounting for Construction contracts when the outcome is uncertain. When this is the case it is hard to make the necessary estimates needed for the percentage of completion method to be used. Both the meaning of the method from an accounting perspective and the practical importance and purpose of the method is investigated. The method used for this study is the qualitative one and the deductive model is used to relate the theory with the empirical research. The theoretical background consists of accounting theory and theories about individuals, companies and markets.

Construction projects are generally designed as a general contract or a complete contract. In a general contract the commercial contract that is being used is AB 04 and related advice and instructions, AMA AF 07. In AB 04 there is an insurance requirement that stipulates that the contractor shall take all risks and liability insurance for the contract where the client must be co-insured.Construction law is almost exclusively regulated by the various standard contracts, one of those is AB 04. The Construction contracts Committe is an organization that has published the standard contracts in this area of law and also the advice and instructions to help the parties to understand the agreements. The insurance requirement occurs in an area of law that is complex and the meaning of the concept is not entirely clear, nor which of the parties? interests and responsibilities that are covered by the types of insurances that are provided by the insurance requirement.

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.

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.

The purpose of this work is to find out how present manager contracts are set up in Landstinget Västmanland (the county council of Västmanland), explore managers? perception of these contracts and why managers have chosen leadership. The work has also reviewed the question if managers need to have a relationship or expertise to the activities they lead and which qualifications are needed in such case. The survey was conducted in two divisions in which nine interviews were held with managers at all levels. In addition to this a questionnaire including the 87 managers in the divisions were held.

This study has been conducted on behalf of Vectura Consulting AB with the purpose to examine how different actors perceive the dimensions of sustainability and sustainable construction. The purpose is also to provide an understanding of existing barriers and opportunities for sustainable construction within the industry and exemplify with different directions for the actors in order to develop sustainability. The study has approach the research problem by using systems theory, developed by Checkland, to identify the relevant system. Other systems theories has been used as an theoretical framework in order to identify barriers and opportunities, which in this study are based on Hughes?s theory about reverse salients and salients.

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.

One of the most crucial entries in the financial statements is revenue. Despite the importanceof revenue a lot of mistakes are made concerning this entry because of the extensive room forjudgements. Especially in the construction companies where a lot of differences exist due tothe fact that different standards are used for similar business transactions.The research concerning IFRIC 15 and the new upcoming standard for revenue recognition isnot very extensive. Studies including both IFRIC 15 and the new standard are even morelimited. Therefore this study aims to compare the effects of IFRIC 15 and the new upcomingstandard for revenue recognition, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, in three Swedishconstruction companies.

The first aim of this study is to examine what the differences are between the Classic directive (directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts) and the Revised Classic directive (directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC) when it comes to social considerations in public procurement. The second aim is to examine if the revision of the directive has solved the prior existing problems regarding social considerations in public procurement. In this paper a traditional European legal method is used. The examinations show a number of things, including the Revised Classic directive involving codification of case law, references to other sources of law and some clarified rules as well as new provisions. The regulations regarding reserved contracts, technical specifications, and selection criterion are satisfied in the Revised Classic directive.

The first aim of this study is to examine what the differences are between the Classic directive (directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts) and the Revised Classic directive (directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC) when it comes to social considerations in public procurement. The second aim is to examine if the revision of the directive has solved the prior existing problems regarding social considerations in public procurement. In this paper a traditional European legal method is used. The examinations show a number of things, including the Revised Classic directive involving codification of case law, references to other sources of law and some clarified rules as well as new provisions. The regulations regarding reserved contracts, technical specifications, and selection criterion are satisfied in the Revised Classic directive.

The first aim of this study is to examine what the differences are between the Classic directive (directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts) and the Revised Classic directive (directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC) when it comes to social considerations in public procurement. The second aim is to examine if the revision of the directive has solved the prior existing problems regarding social considerations in public procurement. In this paper a traditional European legal method is used. The examinations show a number of things, including the Revised Classic directive involving codification of case law, references to other sources of law and some clarified rules as well as new provisions. The regulations regarding reserved contracts, technical specifications, and selection criterion are satisfied in the Revised Classic directive.

The first aim of this study is to examine what the differences are between the Classic directive (directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts) and the Revised Classic directive (directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC) when it comes to social considerations in public procurement. The second aim is to examine if the revision of the directive has solved the prior existing problems regarding social considerations in public procurement. In this paper a traditional European legal method is used. The examinations show a number of things, including the Revised Classic directive involving codification of case law, references to other sources of law and some clarified rules as well as new provisions. The regulations regarding reserved contracts, technical specifications, and selection criterion are satisfied in the Revised Classic directive.

The first aim of this study is to examine what the differences are between the Classic directive (directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts) and the Revised Classic directive (directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC) when it comes to social considerations in public procurement. The second aim is to examine if the revision of the directive has solved the prior existing problems regarding social considerations in public procurement. In this paper a traditional European legal method is used. The examinations show a number of things, including the Revised Classic directive involving codification of case law, references to other sources of law and some clarified rules as well as new provisions. The regulations regarding reserved contracts, technical specifications, and selection criterion are satisfied in the Revised Classic directive.

The first aim of this study is to examine what the differences are between the Classic directive (directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts) and the Revised Classic directive (directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC) when it comes to social considerations in public procurement. The second aim is to examine if the revision of the directive has solved the prior existing problems regarding social considerations in public procurement. In this paper a traditional European legal method is used. The examinations show a number of things, including the Revised Classic directive involving codification of case law, references to other sources of law and some clarified rules as well as new provisions. The regulations regarding reserved contracts, technical specifications, and selection criterion are satisfied in the Revised Classic directive.