Skadeståndsansvar för medverkan till avtalsbrott: En komparativ studie av svensk och engelsk rätt

Sammanfattning: Tort liability for inducement of breach of contract was introduced to English law already in the mid-1800s, through the case of Lumely v Gye. In Swedish law, however, there were until quite recently only very limited legal support for such a liability. But that changed in 2005 when the Supreme Court of Sweden pronounced its decision in NJA 2005 s. 608. This essay describes the conditions under which an inducement of a breach of contract can give rise to liability in English law and explores whether an equivalent principle can be said to exist in Sweden as well. I find that there is now strong support for such a proposition. At the same time, I underline that the conditions for accountability are not the same. In English law, there are clear criteria, and I present them in the essay. In Swedish law, on the other hand, the conditions are not as clear. However, the relevant test appears to be whether the act of inducement can be said to be serious and particularly indecent (Swe. kvalificerat otillbörligt). These conditions open for a more holistic assessment and in general the conditions for accountability appear to be higher.