Kvalifioitu tuottamus ja vastuunrajoituslausekkeet
Avainsanat:
Velvoiteoikeus, sopimusoikeus, vastuunrajoitusehto, sopimusvapaus, törkeä huolimattomuus, sopimuksen sovitteluAbstrakti
Intention and gross negligence versus contractual limitations of liability
The article deals with contractual limitations of liability and their applicability in situations where the breach of contract has been intentional or grossly negligent. There is a non-statutory, but in the past generally accepted doctrine in Finland to the effect that limitations of liability remain categorically inapplicable if the party in breach of the contract has acted intentionally or grossly negligently. It is, however, somewhat unclear whether this doctrine remains in effect as an independent uncodified doctrine also after the entry into force of section 36 of the Contracts Act in 1983.
The authors first elaborate on how limitations of liability have been addressed in Finland and in Sweden. They then suggest that the applicability of limitation of liability clauses should reasonably be assessed holistically on the basis of section 36 of the Contracts Act, and no longer on the basis of an uncodified doctrine and an evaluation of whether the conditions of intent or gross negligence are present. This position has already been widely accepted in Sweden after a 2017 ruling of the Swedish Supreme Court, which has also provided inspiration and a valuable reference point for this article.
