Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Negotiabilitet för löpande skuldebrev: En konsekvensanalys av NJA 2010 s. 467
Jönköping University, Jönköping International Business School, JIBS, Commercial Law.
2012 (Swedish)Independent thesis Basic level (degree of Bachelor), 10 credits / 15 HE creditsStudent thesis
Abstract [en]

The signature of a promissory note is that it should be easy to put on the market. Before NJA 2010 p. 467 was published, an acquirer of a promissory note was in good faith as long as he not suspected or had reasonable suspicion about what the debtor’s objection was based on. This means that good faith often was fulfilled when the bar for good faith was not difficult to achieve. As the Supreme Court ruled, relating to an objection based on Chapter 2 § 15 SkbrL., the bar of good faith was raised and the turnover in the market of the promissory notes might now fall. Today an acquirer of a promissory note must, to be in good faith, contact the debtor a time before and investigate whether the relationship is valid or not. For the rule to be applicable the acquirer must be a finance Institution while the debtor cannot be. This means a higher administrative burden and increased costs for the acquirer of the promissory note.

The ruling will result in certain consequences for finance Institutions and their trade with promissory notes. The consequences appear different depending on which way the finance Institutions choose to go. Actively consulting with the debtor before and ask about the legal position is an administrative burden, but it is also an option to avoid litigation of good faith. Another option is to impose an additional cost to the transferor of the promissory note for all the time and money that the finance Institutions must be lain down to prove its good faith. An option that might be preferable is when the debtor has paid the promissory note, he should require the note back. If so, the finance Institutions avoid the higher administrative burden and the debtor is better protected against the payment several times, since the promissory note is not to be put on the market again.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. , 34 p.
Keyword [sv]
NJA 2010 s. 467, Finansinstitut, god tro, negotiabilitet
National Category
Law and Society
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-18168OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hj-18168DiVA: diva2:529346
Subject / course
IHH, Commercial Law
Uppsok
Social and Behavioural Science, Law
Supervisors
Examiners
Available from: 2012-06-21 Created: 2012-05-30 Last updated: 2012-06-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Larsson, Linnea
By organisation
JIBS, Commercial Law
Law and Society

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 468 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf