WHY ARE THE JUDGES SAY THAT 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 IN SPAIN ENDORSEMENT.
In Spain, Many wonder if the Judges are Creating or changing Laws Sometimes When reinterpreted in a way That the Way It Was departs Drafted by the legislator, ie, by the Representatives Elected by the people. Is it fair That the Judges can say what the Beyond law says so far Seems to be what saying? Is it fair That this interpretation Punish the weakest in the Relationship Between contract developers and homebuyers?
At This Time I Mean That are giving solutions Some courts to Judge and 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 Consequences Would Be A Financial penalty only administrative inspection of If This Were to occur. That is, As You Can not Impose Sanctions May be administrative 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 housing developers so imperative That 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 Both the onset and delayed the delivery to the buyer to terminate the WAS contract Entitled Returning the money paid by plus legal interest since They Became Their final delivery to return.
But the standard form states Further That the rights Enshrined in the law 57/1968 are essential for buyers: the right to guarantee and secure the right to Have Your Money Back with Interest When the promoter is delayed.
Therefor, if required by law to include the Obligations of the developer housing and Gives the buyer Certain inalienable rights, why are Judges and provincial There 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 now decriminalized Certain plays only a matter of administrative penalty forgets But it is a contractual That Requirement That Must meet developers and Who are not saved by paying a fine.
And the funny thing is That Article 6.3 of the Civil Code prohibits peremptory Acts Contrary to Norms (developers Fulfill Their obligation to guarantee the quantity or Ensure Delivered). But consumer rights on Legislation That strengthens the Above Further rights, Which Should Reinforce to serve 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 impossible to access the Almost Supreme Court.
How have you been Able to Forget That They Are inalienable rights of buyers? How did you eat 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 Breach of a contract the obligation by law is only imposer worthy of an administrative penalty? How Can Judge be penalized in This Way to home buyers?