Kolliderande standardavtal
En analys av svensk och tysk avtalsrätt beträffandev kolliderande standardavtal
AbstractThe use of standard agreements can hardly be overestimated in the society of today. The amount of standard agreements should barely decrease. One of the standard agreement?s main purposes, to make the concluding of the contract more effective, strongly agrees with the companies will to accomplish fast concluding of agreements using as small resources as possible A dispute that can arise in these contexts is that dissimilar standard agreements collide. Between nations this is called Battle of Forms. It is a situation of practice which is difficult to solve through the basic rules of contract law. The aim of the essay is to bring clarity into how the legal problems concerning Battle of Forms is solved in Sweden respectively Germany. Also CISG, Unidroit and PECL?s solutions of the same problem is going to be mentioned. A critical examining of the different solutions that the system of rules has in disposal will also be done. In the context of the situation an examination will show if there is any resistance towards these. If that is the case some parts of the critic will be presented. To be able to answer my questions at issue a traditional method of legal-dogmatism has been used together with comparative strains.Sweden lacks a direct law-prescribed solution of Battle of Forms, nor is there a direct legal usage. Sweden has tried to apply the directions of 6 § AvtL on the problem, but this one suits the context badly. Besides the directions in AvtL some solution models are found which can build the foundation for a settlement. Consequently the problem remains unsolved in the Swedish legal system.Neither does Germany have a legal rule which is directly applicable. Some guidance is however given from the German law. According to the German law the settlement should be settled with The knock-out doctrine as its foundation. When harmonising is not possible one should fall back on The Last shot or optional law, it depends on the occurrence of abwehrklauseln (protection clauses).Neither has CISG directly pointed on how to solve the problem. CISG?s legal usage also advocates that The knock-out doctrine should build the foundation. What tool that should be used to fill the holes that the harmonising leaves behind is somewhat indistinct. It should be The last shot, optional law or an interpretation of article 7 about ?good faith?.Unidroit and PECL state that agreed terms shall be applied. Consequently the person applying the law should practise the Knock-out doctrine. However the rules give no guidance about how the arising holes should be filled after the harmonising.Above all Swedish literature directs strong criticism towards the different solutions. The criticism is especially pointed at the lack of predictability and also at the risk of making arbitrary settlements. This of course depends on what kind of solution model that is discussed.In Germany there has been, and still is, a solution which the person applying the law can use. In Germany protection clauses has an important role of the settlement. Even in these cases criticism is directed towards the solution. However the criticism is not as hardly directed towards the lack of predictability. Instead the criticism is pointed at the unsuitability of applying the optional law in some commercial relationships. And also that the applicability of the last shot results in a ?ping pong? similar situation of passing terms back and force. Also in the international world of law some criticism has been delivered that agrees with both the Swedish and the German criticism.