{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2001-s-177",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:00d9d057c9235890e8eab0e44dbb712cbf1e44b9673320bff7660b66c1df91fc",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "NJA 2001 s. 177, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-nja-2001-s-177",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2001-s-177",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "NJA 2001 s. 177, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: Vid köp och arbetsbeting som direkt eller analogivis omfattas av 1990 års köplag har huvudregeln ansetts vara att den part som hävdar att avtal har träffats om priset eller om beräkningsgrunden för detta har bevisbördan för sitt påstående.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Publicerat som vägledande avgörande från Högsta domstolen, 2001. Tillämpar Köplagen."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2001-s-177",
  "softwareVersion": "66f9dfcad7f62f51",
  "citation": "avgorande-nja-2001-s-177, NJA 2001 s. 177, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2001-s-177 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:5b217f6616c67f22, bygge legal-2026-08-25).",
  "disclaimer": "Källhänvisning med officiell identifierare. Ingen juridisk rådgivning och inget efterlevnadsbeslut.",
  "potentialAction": {
    "@type": "SearchAction",
    "target": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/node-agents/avgorande/nja-2001-s-177/run?{&samma_lagrum,samma_instans,avgorande_ar_senare}"
  },
  "language": "sv",
  "source_language": "sv",
  "text_language": "sv",
  "available_languages": [
    "sv",
    "en",
    "no",
    "de"
  ],
  "translated_views": [
    "manifest.json",
    "ai.json"
  ],
  "source_only_views": [
    "script.json",
    "run",
    "monitor.json",
    "verify"
  ],
  "translated": false,
  "hash": "sha256:00d9d057c9235890e8eab0e44dbb712cbf1e44b9673320bff7660b66c1df91fc",
  "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
  "expires": "2026-08-31T00:00:00.000Z",
  "dependency": {
    "index_version": "legal-2026-08-25+legal-2026-08-25+2026-08-25T10:00:00",
    "content_hash": "sha256:00d9d057c9235890e8eab0e44dbb712cbf1e44b9673320bff7660b66c1df91fc",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T06:13:22.248Z",
    "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600,
    "policy": "revalidate-required; live-fetch-per-answer; attribution-required; no-derived-index",
    "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency",
    "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify",
    "stale_copy_invalid": true
  },
  "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/nja-2001-s-177",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}