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.

This thesis treats the information the insurance company is going to give the policyholders just before the insurance is to be concluded and soon thereafter. The purpose for the essay is to investigate whether the mentioned information can be considered to meet the purpose referred to its establishment. The investigation will also show if the penalty for not upholding this obligation is reasonable in relation to the aim the duty to inform the policyholders is meant to uphold.Information to be provided before the contract is concluded should facilitate the choice of insurance. The information to be given to the policyholders as soon as possible after the contract is concluded should be given as a form of confirmation and information on conditions that has not been stated before. The purposes that have been mentioned is for both the information to consumers and companies.The conclusion that can be made after the analysis is that the information is of great importance for the policyholder, both for consumers and companies.

The object of this essay was to illustrate and analyse what determines that a contract treatment investigation for a drug addict is initiated and what factors influence the investigation itself, from the probation service officer's perspective.We selected the following two questions:- What does the probation service officer see as being the deciding factor for a contract treatment investigation to be initiated?- What questions appear in a contract treatment investigation and how do they influence the investigation, according to the probation service officer?To find answers to these questions we conducted interviews with 11 probation service officers, during November and December 2005, at three different locations across Skåne. We decided to use the qualitative method for collecting the data we needed.In our essay we came to the conclusion that the will and motivation of the client is a deciding factor whether or not a contract treatment investigation is to be initiated. An important collaborator in this process is the social services. According to the probation service officers, many of the problems that may appear in the co-operation are due to the tough economic constraints experienced by the social services.

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 general contract law principle of loyalty between negotiators, in deliberation, leads to a duty of disclosure for negotiators. The extent of this duty of disclosure is influenced by many different factors; amongst others the type of agreement, the negotiators knowledge and opportunity of procuring knowledge. The general duty of disclosure is both a part of the contract law principle of loyalty between negotiators in negotiating a contract, and an indirectly statutory obligation, that, if neglected will lead to nullification of the agreement. The legislator has stated that the general contract law, Lag (1915:218) om avtal och andra rättshandlingar på förmögenhetsrättens område (avtalslagen), should be used to regulate negotiating of contracts, including the negotiation of contracts of employment. In arbetsdomstolens judging, additional factors have been weighed in, and the judgement is done also through the use of a concept taken from employment law, the concept of ?saklig grund för uppsägning?.

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.

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.

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.

Insurance terms always go with the insurance contract that you sign. In theseterms the assurers rights and obligations towards the insurer are stipulated. It is often difficult to interpret these insurance terms. Sometimes it is hard to decide whether an incident is considered an insurance event or not. These problems often cause disputes between the assurer and the insurer.

The aim of this paper is to spread some light over contract treatment from the perspective of the District Courts, Social Services and Probation Services, and understand the reason for local variation of the number of people sentenced to contractual treatment.Essential questions asked in this paper are; What advantages and disadvantages are known by the cooperating parties regarding contract treatment in comparison to prison? What parameters are considered when the cooperating parties decide upon contract treatment? What impact does the shared responsibility of cost have? What do the respondents think is the reason for the local variation?In order to answer the essential questions a qualitative and descriptive method has been used to highlight the main question of our study; What is the reason for the local variation in number of contract treatment sentences in Halmstad and Ystads district courts?The paper shows that the local variation between the Probation Services districts is dependent on the conditions to propose a contract treatment. In Halmstad it is not conditioned for the Probation Services to have a responsibility agreement with the Social Services to the same extent as for the Probation Services in Ystad..