{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1994-98",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:a3aeb89fddf880a2ff79d16d9799b367fd8268ab843274bf9a95285999a52234",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 1994:98, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-1994-98",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1994-98",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "RH 1994:98, beslutsagent",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad domstolen sa: Fel vid värderingen i samband med exekutiv försäljning av fastighet har inte ansetts utgöra sådant fel som i sig bör föranleda att försäljningen skall upphävas. - Även fråga om det varit sannolikt att väsentligt högre köpeskilling kunnat uppnås vid en ny exekutiv försäljning.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Hovrätten för Övre Norrland, 1994."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1994-98",
  "softwareVersion": "30d5cfadf6981f17",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-1994-98, RH 1994:98, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1994-98 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:25cd9e5485387d6c, 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/rh-1994-98/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:a3aeb89fddf880a2ff79d16d9799b367fd8268ab843274bf9a95285999a52234",
  "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:a3aeb89fddf880a2ff79d16d9799b367fd8268ab843274bf9a95285999a52234",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T08:14:36.389Z",
    "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/rh-1994-98",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}