Properties are bought and sold daily, which means that it is of great importance with rules that regulate the acquisition. The rules on who should be held liable for a property brought to a head when the acquisition relates to a property that is loaded with contaminated soil. The purpose with this thesis is to investigate who could be held liable for contaminated land and also whether an exclusion clause can affect the separation of responsibilities. Two different liabilities can occur depending on which law that should be applicable, MB or JB.

MB's rules apply to anyone who may be subject to decontamination responsibilities, which is regulated in Chapter 10. MB. The rules state that a decontamination responsibility attaches to one or more operators, or one or more property owners. In assessing whether contamination exists and whom to be considered responsible, an assessment is made along the facts of the case.

JB's rules apply to what can be considered as defects in a property, the rules in JB is therefore crucial to whether the pollution could be considered as an error. Different circumstances are important when deciding what party that should be liable, like the agreement between the parties, the buyer’s obligation to examine the property and the seller’s duty to inform the buyer. All factors are important when deciding who to be held liable. The separation of responsibilities is important when deciding whether the buyer has an opportunity to refer to different sanction against the seller.

An exclusion clause can to some extent affect the separation of responsibilities. This is valid both for the decontamination responsibilities under MB and the rules in JB. Some facts should be considered when an exclusion clause is written, since it may be annulled or adjusted if certain conditions exist.