Borgenärsskydd för lösöre i överlåtarens vård : Besittningskonstitut - hur främmande är det egentligen för svensk sakrätt?

Sammanfattning: Swedish property law, when it comes to acquisition of movable property, the transferee does not acquire ownership as such, instead, the sale is considered protected against the claim of the seller’s creditors (borgenärsskydd). This is achieved through the delivery principle (traditionsprincipen), meaning in its Swedish sense that movable property must not necessarily be delivered into the trans- feree’s possession, but rather that the transferor’s possibility to dispose over the movable is severed. This principle has been subjected to considerable alterations, mainly due to allowing situations where the delivery principle would otherwise be practically impossible. These alterations raise the question of how far these legal solutions can be detached from the fundamental principle. Therefore, it is relevant to ponder, if these solutions, which can merely be considered as artificial solutions to satisfy a formal requirement, are like the constitutum possessorium of civil law orders This thesis will attend to this issue, addressing the following three questions: Question (i): how does the concept of ownership apply to legal questions in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and the Draft Common Frame of Reference respectively? Question (ii): does Swedish property law grant protection against the transferor’s creditors although the movable is detained with the transferor? Question (iii): is there any systematic compatibility in relation to the delivery principle in Swedish property law and DCFR respectively? Espe- cially when the movable is detained with the transferor. In relation to question (i), it has been found that in DCFR, ownership is closely linked with possession, which means that ownership follows the delivery of possession. This is not necessarily the case in Swedish property law. Question (ii) is answered in connection to a study of Swedish case-law, which results in that the movable can be detained with the transferor, provided that some require- ments are fulfilled, only if it is a result of a physical action and not solely due to a contract. However, case-law has evolved this general rule to be subjected to a propensity of looking past, or creating new, requirements in order not to create unnecessary complications of compliance as far as it concerns honest transac- tions. This has resulted in a kind of peculiar flexibility. In answer to question (iii), due to the new types of solutions created not to complicate certain transactions, the possibility of reaching similar results as the continental principle is more prominent than one might have thought. Despite certain resemblances, the sys- tematic compatibility must be seen as limited, due to the difference in the respec- tive rules’ aim.