Citat i kontext

Närliggande

Fotnot 8

NJA 1986 s. 596.

Hänvisas från p. 8 (s. 418)

8.A requirement of clarity may be posed in order to protect just one of the contracting parties, for instance a consumer. Where a businessperson submits an interpretation in such a case the wording of the contract will be decisive, not other interpretation factors. If, however, a consumer presents an interpretation, other arguments than the wordings of the contract may by be of great importance for a court. In a consumer price dispute, the Swedish Supreme Court held that rather stringent requirements have to be posed on a businessperson in order to induce him and her to contribute to the drafting of a contract that makes the meaning clear to the consumer. The legal consequences for the consumer were reasons for placing a “clarity burden” on the businessperson. Thus, the Court stressed that the contract concerned an isolated case of great importance for the consumer, where the businessperson furnished the contractual document concerning such an important matter for the consumer as the price. In the case at hand, the written contract contained clauses on the delivery of a prefabricated house, but not on the mounting of the house. In this respect, the Supreme Court concluded that the written contract did not give an exhaustive account for the contractual relationship. Thus, the clarity requirement raised against a businessperson will not prevent a court from paying regard to consumer arguments that lack support in the contract.s. 418