Vid vilket skede anses lojalitetsplikten kunna utgöra en skadeståndsgrund vid prekontraktuella förhållanden inom fastighetsköp?

Sammanfattning: Within Swedish tort law, liability for damages is regulated within both contractual and non- contractual relationships. Furthermore, a culpable act must have taken place for a liability for indemnity to be possibly/probable presented. Furthermore, it is the principle culpa in contrahendo that imposes liability for culpable acts that take place in the pre-contractual stage. Culpa in contrahendo is, however, a principle that is not found in statutory law, but instead in several legal systems.  The principle was applied for the first time in the case NJA 1963 p.105. The case concerned negotiations that never led to a final contractual relationship, which resulted in an adjudged indemnity. Although the indemnity was limited with regard for the negative contractual interests, they still became a support for a pre-contractual liability for indemnity based on the principle culpa in contrahendo. However, implementing the principle in contractual issues concerning property purchases, turns out to involve a number of contradictions; on the one hand, the negative freedom of contract and the formal requirements weigh heavily, on the other hand, the duty of loyalty and its pre-contractual responsibility prevail. In a balance of interests, at what point does one aspect weigh more heavily than the other? How far advanced should the contract negotiations be before the duty of loyalty outweighs the formal requirements and the negative contractual interest, which, among other things, must mean security and freedom of contract? Is the principle even possible to implement in matters concerning property purchases? The investigation states that culpa in contrahendo can possibly be applied even to property purchases, as the principle may be considered accepted within Swedish law. However, the formal requirements and the negative contractual interest may limit any indemnity. The time when the duty of loyalty arises seems to be when one party makes another party believe that an agreement will be finalized, when the intention to execute an agreement does not in fact exist. It is also required that adequate causality is established, between the party’s culpable actions and the other party’s costs as well as financial damage in connection with the belief that an agreement should be executed. However, it is also required that other circumstances speak in favor of, or rather do not argue against, an adjudged indemnity.