Ja, vi elsker dette prinsippet
Sammanfattning: In Swedish and Norwegian litigation cases, the evidence situation is handled in very different ways. Swedish law uses burden of proof while Norwegian law uses the overweight principle. The purpose of the thesis is to distinguish and, based on a perspective of legal certainty, comment on the differences between the methods. The burden of proof is brought to light when the parties in a dispute come with each their competing claim. It then becomes up to the judge to impose the burden of proof on one of the parties. This means that the party in question, with the help of evidence, must come up with the proof requirement that has been put forward for their claim to be the basis for the judgment. If they fail, the judgment will be added to the other party's claim. Thus, this party does not have to reach any evidence that the judgment must be based on its claim, it is sufficient that the party having the burden of proof fails to reach it. The overweight principle is raised in the same situation as the burden of proof but solves the problem in a different way. Instead of burdening one of the parties, it is up to each and every one to prove that one's own claim is more likely than the other party's. The judge has the task of deciding which claim is most likely and then base the judgment on it.
HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)