Is there a way out of Russia?
Swedish companies that want to withdraw from Russia are in a tough position if the counterparty points to agreements entered into. The situation may at first seem hopeless with agreements locking them in, but there are a number of ways to try.
Dagens industri has consulted several experts to hear about if Swedish companies can break their agreements with the country.
One of those speaking out is Joel Samuelsson, professor of Private Law at the Department of Law, Uppsala University. He says that in Swedish Contract Law it can be argued that a contract has become unreasonable as a result of changed conditions.
- The premise is typically that the changed conditions have led to an imbalance between the parties that makes it unreasonable to demand the performance, he tells Di.
- If you have not regulated a risk, and if it is such that it disrupts the conditions for the agreement, you can in some cases partially or totally explain it idly with reference to the lack of conditions, says Joel Samuelsson.
Di's writer, Jesper Mothander, asks if the outbreak of war poses such a risk?
- It is a question of what the parties could reasonably have imagined at the time of entering into the agreement. And, of course, there is a very big difference if you trade with Russia or, for example, Holland.
Joel also points to the possibility of claiming that the war has upset the balance of the contractual relationship:
- If the performance is sufficiently burdensome, you may have an obligation to renegotiate, for example if the costs in the form of PR losses become too large for the company, says Joel.
Elisabeth Hoff