{
  "attribution": {
    "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com",
    "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-88",
    "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision",
    "version": "legal-2026-08-25",
    "proof": "sha256:b30c605b0308b27c4b9f6a7fe8789c40b494f0d640967224f018127b68bdd33a",
    "jurisdiction": "eu"
  },
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "applicationCategory": "LegalService",
  "name": "RH 1997:88, beslutsagent",
  "identifier": "avgorande-rh-1997-88",
  "url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-88",
  "inLanguage": "sv",
  "about": "Fråga om överlåtelse av likvidationsbolagets enda större tillgång, en hyresfordran, kunde bedömas som en tillåten avvecklingsåtgärd eller om avtalskontrahenten varit i god tro och överlåtelsen till följd därav var giltig",
  "abstract": [
    "Vad som hände: Ett handelsbolag hade trätt i likvidation till följd av att antalet bolagsmän sex månader tidigare nedgått till en.",
    "Varför det spelar roll: Avgörande från Svea hovrätt, 1996."
  ],
  "isBasedOn": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-88",
  "softwareVersion": "693f6fb833520655",
  "citation": "avgorande-rh-1997-88, RH 1997:88, beslutsagent. ExploreWorld Legal, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/juridik/praxis/rh-1997-88 (hämtad 2026-08-29, bevis sha256:1698155ed938c26a, 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-1997-88/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:b30c605b0308b27c4b9f6a7fe8789c40b494f0d640967224f018127b68bdd33a",
  "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:b30c605b0308b27c4b9f6a7fe8789c40b494f0d640967224f018127b68bdd33a",
    "revalidate_after": "2026-08-30T09:07:13.434Z",
    "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-1997-88",
  "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering"
}