El blog de Maria

 My clients.

They often have a better sense of justice that many magistrates.

It happened to me today when reading Anne´s post to yesterday´s blogentry:

The blogpost stated how Murcia Appeal Court states the breaches in Polaris contracts but, does not connect cancellation rights to this. It does connect compensation rights and opened the gate to future cancellation is facilities are not provided.

Anne´s reaction:

Anne said: 
12 March 2012 @ 22:38 

Did I read that correctly.... Polaris are still promising facilities to new purchasers? 
Where exactly does the law stand on false marketing now Maria? 
How can purchasers possibly believe anything they are told relating to ANY purchase in Spain, if the law does not protect them from this abusive malpractice? 
New purchasers won't want to purchase a product that might fail to meet its marketing literature under the security that compensation might be made available if the developer fails to meet their obligations...... it's a nonsense to expect new purchasers in Spain to be exposed to this level of uncertainty and risk.... never knowing where the next falsehood will arise and what end result they will have to live with. 
Surely promised facilities from the outset are a major factor in the choice of property, and the lack of promised facilities as per the marketing literature would surely be considered a breach????
Is this judicial ruling consistent with other rulings elsewhere Maria, or is this a "rogue" ruling? 

This ruling is against Supreme Court and other Appeal Courts in Spain. It is, as Anne describes it,  a "rogue" ruling. 

There might be people though, for whom the good price compensation is a good solution to their problem.

Let´s see...

"Setenil de las Bodegas", Cadiz, Spain, by _DODO, at flickr.com