El blog de Maria

sandra said:
Wednesday, August 6, 2014 @ 11:09 PM

""I bet for a professional liability joint action to be brought against all related actors involved: lawyer, notary, property valuator, bank, estate agent and their corresponding professional insurances""

Six years ago my husband asked our new lawyer to sue the lawyer who got us into the position of not having a bank guarantee on our off-plan purchase.
If it is so easy to sue these people as you seem to describe in the above statement, why are we involved in a costly series of expensive court cases to prove his negligence? The fact that he did not ensure we had the legally required bank guarantee is proof enough he was negligent?

mariadecastro said:
Thursday, August 7, 2014 @ 7:27 AM

Good morning Sandra.
Post above is about lawyers liabilities due to lack of license. Professional liabilities of differnt actors has been progressively stated legally as the post describes.

In regards of actions against Lawyers for lacking of law 57/68 guarantee. The fact that law 57/68 makes banks liable of this lack makes the need of a case against developers/banks to be performed first. IN early times, before developers were not bankrupted, a case just against them was enough. Now, and with the strength of increasing case law on Bank Liabilities when there is no guarantee issued, refund action ( involving a contract cancellation) against both entities: developer and Bank is the safest and rightest procedures.

If this is not possible, then, a professional indemnity action against lawyers and/or agents--depending on facts-- is the route.

sandra said:
Thursday, August 7, 2014 @ 1:08 PM

Thank you for clearing that up Maria.