Kontraheringsplikt och personförsäkring

Sammanfattning: The freedom of contract-principle has been a standard rule within the general contract law for quite some time. The principle was strongly supported by the liberals’ point of view and its importance grew during the liberalistic era. In contrast, socialists were concerned that weaker parties would come to be mistreated by an absolute form of freedom of contract. It is now known that the parties of the free market had a diversity of strength, where the stronger sometime abused their position. To avoid that weaker parties were being refused access to contracts, which is required in order to fulfill their needs, a obligation to contract has been applied to some extent. For this reason the swedish law can nowadays be characterized as being in a state of relative freedom of contract. The question is when the obligation to contract can be righteously applied. It is possible that less restricting measures have been enough at some occasions where obligation to contract nevertheless has been applied anyway. Obligation to contract for personal insurance was introduced in 2006 as part of Försäkringsavtalslagen (2005:104) (FAL). This essay examines whether the obligation to contract for personal insurance can be considered as justified. The conclusion I’ve drawn from the survey is that the obligation to contract for personal insurance can be considered justified in achieving the objectives pursued. However, one should examine whether there are less restrictive alternatives that can be used instead.