WHY ARE JUDGES SAY THAT THE LACK OF BOND FAILURE IS NOT ESSENTIAL HOUSING DEVELOPER. OR WHAT IS THE SAME, WHY THE LAW SAYS ONE THING AND SOME SAY THE LAW JUDGES SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW ON THE ENDORSEMENT IN SPAIN. Reviewed by Momizat on .   In Spain,Many wonder if the judges are sometimes creating or changing laws when reinterpreted in a way that departs the way it was drafted by the legislator,   In Spain,Many wonder if the judges are sometimes creating or changing laws when reinterpreted in a way that departs the way it was drafted by the legislator, Rating: 0
Inicio » Blog Arriaga Asociados » WHY ARE JUDGES SAY THAT THE LACK OF BOND FAILURE IS NOT ESSENTIAL HOUSING DEVELOPER. OR WHAT IS THE SAME, WHY THE LAW SAYS ONE THING AND SOME SAY THE LAW JUDGES SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW ON THE ENDORSEMENT IN SPAIN.

WHY ARE JUDGES SAY THAT THE LACK OF BOND FAILURE IS NOT ESSENTIAL HOUSING DEVELOPER. OR WHAT IS THE SAME, WHY THE LAW SAYS ONE THING AND SOME SAY THE LAW JUDGES SAY SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE LAW ON THE ENDORSEMENT IN SPAIN.

triangulo

 

In Spain,Many wonder if the judges are sometimes creating or changing laws when reinterpreted in a way that departs the way it was drafted by the legislator, ie, by the representatives elected by the people. Is it fair that the judges can say what the law says so far beyond what seems to be saying? Is it fair that this interpretation punish the weakest in the contractual relationship between developers and homebuyers?

At this time I mean solutions that are giving some judges and courts to the obligation for housing developers to ensure the amounts received on account of buyers. Although the law is clear and sharp as to what the guarantees, some judges believe that this is irrelevant for the purposes of breach of contract, but merely a contractual defect, or a mere breach is not essential, the consequence would only be a financial penalty of administrative inspection if this were to occur. That is, as you can not impose administrative sanctions may be sued for breach. Curious.

Well, the Law 57/1968 of 27 July, regulating the amounts perceptions Early in the construction and sale of homes, declared in force by law 38/1999, of November 5, Management of Construction, said so imperative that housing developers must sign a bank guarantee or insurance to ensure quantities delivered to account by the buyer of a house in background. This obligation should also be collected so imperative in the contract.

Also if the house was delayed both the onset and the delivery to the buyer was entitled to terminate the contract by returning the money paid plus interest since they became legal delivery to their final return.

But the former standard further states that the rights enshrined in the law 57/1968 are indispensable for buyers: the right to guarantee and secure the right to have your money back with interest when the promoter is delayed.

Therefore, if required by law to include the obligations of the developer housing and gives the buyer certain rights inalienable, why there are judges and provincial audiences are saying that this is not a fundamental breach of contract with the right to terminate the contract and return the money paid?

The funny thing is that until the reform of the penal code of 1995, breach of that obligation home sellers with buyers, had the effect of criminal punishment. When this case is decriminalized certain plays now only a matter of administrative penalty but forgets that it is a contractual requirement that developers must meet and who are not saved by paying a fine.

And the funny thing is that Article 6.3 of the Civil Code prohibits acts contrary to peremptory norms (developers fulfill their obligation to ensure or guarantee the quantity delivered). But that legislation on consumer rights further strengthens the above rights, which should serve to reinforce a more protective interpretation of the buyers. But some judges and provincial courts do not see it. And while it’s a topic for another blog, the Supreme Court, with its own narrow interpretation of the right to appeal is silent on the issue because it is almost impossible to access the Supreme Court.

How have you been able to forget that they are inalienable rights of buyers? How did you come to understand that the obligation to endorse or ensure the amounts of the promoters are the rights of buyers and are part of a contract? How do you think that the breach of a contractual obligation imposed by law is only worthy of an administrative penalty? How can judges be penalized in this way to home buyers?

Acerca del Autor

triangulo
triangulo

Deje su comentario

triangulo

Subir