- NJA 2006 s.638
- Högsta Domstolen (Supreme Court)
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BETWEEN A SWEDISH INDIVIDUAL AND A SWEDISH COUNTY DISTRICT -REFERENCE TO UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN SUPPORT OF THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW (SWEDISH LAW)
MODIFIED ACCEPTANCE - WRITINGS IN CONFIRMATION - REFERENCE TO ARTICLES 2.1.11 AND 2.1.12 UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES
Claimant, a Swedish physician, and Respondent, a Swedish county district, had negotiated a settlement agreement during a couple of months. According to that agreement the county district should pay 100 000 Euro to the physician. When the county district asked the physician to draft a contract and send it to the county district, stating that it would then return the contract to the physician, the physician a few days later sent an email with the contract attached ”for signing”, but the county district did not reply. The physician then sent a letter with the original contract signed by himself and an empty dotted line for the county district’s signature. This time the county district did reply but only months later, stating that it was not bound by any settlement agreement.
The Supreme Court held that the county district was bound by the settlement agreement, since it had not responded and objected without undue delay to the physician’s mail where he indicated ”for signing”. In support of this decision one of the five judges referred to the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts noting that, although Articles 2.11 [now 2.1.11] and 2.12 [now 2.1.12] did not provide a clear answer to the question as to whether a binding contract had been formed in the case at hand, the decision of the Court was justified in the light of the general principle of good faith set forth in Article 1.7.