Adlercreutz & Gorton, Avtalsrätt, p. 78. 1 3 NJA 1980 s. 46. 14 NJA 2011 s. 454, 5 and 19. 15 NJA 2002 s. 142 and NJA 2004 s. 397. 16 The Supreme Administrative Court’s verdict on February 6 2017, case no 426815. 17 See about preclusion Heuman, Arbitration Law of Sweden, Juris publishing 2003, p. 388 and 401. 1 8 Heuman, p. 31 and 32 and Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande, Andra upplagan, Norstedts juridik 2012, p. 46–56. 19 Lindskog, p. 62. Cfr p. 98. 20 Lindskog, p. 97 and 99. 21 NJA 1981 s. 711. 22 Rättsfall från bostadsdomstolen 1979:9. 2 3 See Svea Court of Appeal’s award in cases no T 10329-10 and T 10401-10, case file no 3 (Final Award p. 98). 24 Adlercreutz & Gorton, Avtalsrätt, p. 111. 2 5 Svea Court of Appeal’s award on May 10 2012 in cases no T 10329-10 and T 10401-10. 2 6 Prop. 1998/99:35 s. 158. 27 Prop. 1998/99:35 s. 158 and 159 and NJA 1989 s. 143. 28 NJA 1989 s. 143. 2 9 In the SAA section 36, paragraph 1, it is provided that an award should contain clear instructions as to what must be done by a party who wishes to challenge the award. The bill lacks an explanation why the instructions have to be clear. Prop. 1998/99:35 s. 238. A party must not be informed of its right to file an application that the award should be invalidated or set aside by an appeal court under the SAA section 34. 30 NJA 2015 s. 991 the appeal court s. 998. 3 1 NJA 2015 s. 991, 13–19. 32 NJA 2015 s. 991, 20. Cfr. Samuelsson, JT 2016–17 s. 485 and 490–493. 33 NJA 2015 s. 991, 21. 34 NJA 2015 s. 991, 22 and 23. 35 NJA 2015 s. 991, Svea Court of Appeal s. 999 and 1000. 3 6 NJA 2015 s. 991, 17. 37 After the government mentioned NJA 1955 s. 224 it stated that the existing rules were well adapted for its purpose. It seems that the view expressed in the Supreme Court case was accepted, at least not rejected. Prop. 1998/99:35 s. 101. 3 8 Prop. 1989/99:35 s. 88. 39 Prop.1998/99:35 s. 89 and 90. 4 0 NJA 2010 s. 219. 41 Heuman, JT 2011–12 s. 656–658. 42 Lindskog, p. 733 and footnote 119. 43 Fouchard, Gaillard and Goldman, International Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer 1999, p. 468–670. 44 Lindskog, p. 488 with footnotes 5 and 585. 4 5 Öhrström, Stockholms Handelskammares Skiljedomsinstitut, Norstedts juridik 2009, p. 146. 4 6 Svea Court of Appeal’s award on December 9 2016, case no T 2675-14 p. 53. In its summary on the following page, the court concluded that the procedure for appointing the arbitrator did not violate public policy. Then the court raised the question whether the award should be set aside because the arbitrator was appointed contrary to the SCC Rules. Without once again dealing with the questions in the above cited part of the judgment the court stated that is was not proved that a procedural error was committed when the arbitration started and when the arbitrator was appointed. 4 7 SCC Rules Article 2 (vi). 48 Öhrström, p. 121.
Hänvisas från p. 10 (s. 419)
10.Sometimes a contracting party denies that there is an effective reference to standard terms. In the legal literature, it is stated, in respect to unexpected and burdensome terms, that it is required that the terms are visible and apparent. It seems that the Supreme Court previously has held that arbitration clauses were burdensome. Later the Supreme Court has explained that they are not of a surprising or burdensome character for businesses of some size (though probably with an exception for small businesses).s. 419