NJA 1989 s. 177 (the district court held that the reference was clear and the Supreme Court that the arbitration clause was covered by the contract) and NJA 2013 s. 1190 and Unnersjö, JT 2014–15 s. 176 and 177. See also NJA 2016 s. 900, 14.
Hänvisas från p. 9 (s. 419)
9.The Supreme Court has explained the meaning of the requirement of clarity in some civil law cases. These cases may be of interest when dealing with questions in the field of arbitration, although the cases are not of procedural character. Sometimes a person has several debts in relation to a creditor. If the debtor makes a payment, he or she has the right to choose and indicate the debt that is paid. When the debtor exercises this right, a certain amount of clarity is required. Even if a determination does not need to be express, it may be evident from the circumstances at hand. If the amount of the payment coincides with one of the debts, this is a sufficient ground for such a determination. In a case concerning interpretation of a penalty clause, a point of departure was that the clause deviated from the non-mandatory provisions of the law. Where such a clause is surprising, far-reaching and clearly advantageous for one of the parties (a contractor), the Supreme Court held that clear support by the words of the contract or by other interpretation factors are required. The requirement of clarity can be met in other ways than an express statement in the contract. Here the words clearly and expressly have different meanings.s. 419