Loss of interest in the contract due to delay

Expatica - Health
Post reply   Start new thread
New - Old :: Old - New

Pages: 1 |

Terrazas de la Torre Golf Resort forum threads
The Comments
28 Jan 2010 12:00 AM by mariadecastro Star rating in Algeciras (Cadiz). 9419 forum posts Send private message

mariadecastro´s avatar

1) May 2006:  Signed a contract for an off plan property, estimated delivery date 18 months from the building permit.

 

2) January 2010: No building permit, no brick.



3) I have no interest in that purchase ... can I solve?



 

According to the Civil Law doctrines of "loss of the thing due" we can affirm that the delay of the start of construction for a period of several months, without good cause and non expressly allowed by the consumer, gives ground for contract cancellation.

 

 

According to Sentence of the Provincial Appeal Court of Valencia dated September 2009, Case law has broadly held and established that a situation of abnormality, resistance or excessive delay opens the gate to cancellation. As these irregularities break the interest in the contract originally agreed, or  turn it into useless and even harmful, frustrating  the contract's inherent economic order  which is  within the cause, breaking the mutual  contract good faith”  ( "FRAGRANTE  FIDEM, FIDES NON EST SERVANDA”.



 

The Supreme Court, as it is mentioned in the referred Sentence of Valencia "has set that time deadlines as an essential term of the contract (STS 15/11/1977, 27/5/1987, 13/3/1987, 6/6/1991, 16 -3-2009).

 

 

Continuing the Valencian Court saying that "it is irrefutable under the rules of logic and sound criticism, that the inordinate delay in fulfilling the contract defeats the purpose, because the future purchasers can not be left indefinitely to the developer´s will, being this also expressly prohibited by article 1256 of the Civil Code, which says: “The validity and enforceability of contracts can not be left to one party"

 

 

Similarly, the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 (14 November), that "The seller is not an arbitrator who can decide when a contract needs to be fulfilled, depending on his interests or conveniences, provided the buyer complies its obligations”

 



How is this all covered by Real Estate Consumer Law?

 

 

Firstly and again: Articles 2 and 3 of Law 57/68 so forgotten and much-criticized at times, to whose I make now a reminder of their last rationale, or ratio iuris: the protection of large sums of money advanced by the client to the developer for the construction of a very important good as housing is “These two articles empower the consumer to decide between extending timeframes or cancelling the contract if the house has not been started or completed on time”.

 



Considerations on the speculation on real estate unit and the economic crisis lying on developers can not languish the protective force of these provisions from 1968.  Being this Law a great tool for a sustainable urban development (so much being on discussion these days).

 

Secondly:  The model contract (stipulation first) signed under the roof of the National Consumer Institute in 2001 to buy / sell off plan and its General Conditions (General condition Six A, Second Paragraph). They ask for clarity on the start date and delivery date.

 

 

Thirdly: Under the present legislative decree on Consumers rights this uncertainty in the start and delivery dates are considered “abusive2 terms (Article 85.1).

 



In my opinion the declaration of the abusive character of a clause which puts beginning or finishing under indetermination, as these timeframes are deemed essential by the Supreme Court, should lead to the possibility for the consumer to the reduction in
the price or termination of the contract.

 

Saying this under the doctrines on object contract loss, essential terms and cancellation, Articles 83 and 85 of Consumers Act Integration of contract clauses and article 2 and 3 of Act 57/68.


Cancellations by "fall" of the interest of the contract.



1) May 2006:  Signed a contract for an off plan property, estimated delivery date 18 months from the building permit.

 

 

2) January 2010: No building permit, no brick.



 

3) I have no interest in that purchase ... can I solve?



 

According to the Civil Law doctrines of "loss of the thing due" we can affirm that the delay of the start of construction for a period of several months, without good cause and non expressly allowed by the consumer, gives ground for contract cancellation.

 

 

According to Sentence of the Provincial Appeal Court of Valencia dated September 2009, Case law has broadly held and established that a situation of abnormality, resistance or excessive delay opens the gate to cancellation. As these irregularities break the interest in the contract originally agreed, or  turn it into useless and even harmful, frustrating  the contract's inherent economic order  which is  within the cause, breaking the mutual  contract good faith”  ( "FRAGRANTE  FIDEM, FIDES NON EST SERVANDA”.



 

The Supreme Court, as it is mentioned in the referred Sentence of Valencia "has set that time deadlines as an essential term of the contract (STS 15/11/1977, 27/5/1987, 13/3/1987, 6/6/1991, 16 -3-2009).

 

 

Continuing the Valencian Court saying that "it is irrefutable under the rules of logic and sound criticism, that the inordinate delay in fulfilling the contract defeats the purpose, because the future purchasers can not be left indefinitely to the developer´s will, being this also expressly prohibited by article 1256 of the Civil Code, which says: “The validity and enforceability of contracts can not be left to one party"

 

 

Similarly, the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 (14 November), that "The seller is not an arbitrator who can decide when a contract needs to be fulfilled, depending on his interests or conveniences, provided the buyer complies its obligations”

 



How is this all covered by Real Estate Consumer Law?

 

 

Firstly and again: Articles 2 and 3 of Law 57/68 so forgotten and much-criticized at times, to whose I make now a reminder of their last rationale, or ratio iuris: the protection of large sums of money advanced by the client to the developer for the construction of a very important good as housing is “These two articles empower the consumer to decide between extending timeframes or cancelling the contract if the house has not been started or completed on time”.

 



Considerations on the speculation on real estate unit and the economic crisis lying on developers can not languish the protective force of these provisions from 1968.  Being this Law a great tool for a sustainable urban development (so much being on discussion these days).

 

Secondly:  The model contract (stipulation first) signed under the roof of the National Consumer Institute in 2001 to buy / sell off plan and its General Conditions (General condition Six A, Second Paragraph). They ask for clarity on the start date and delivery date.

 

 

Thirdly: Under the present legislative decree on Consumers rights this uncertainty in the start and delivery dates are considered “abusive2 terms (Article 85.1).

 



In my opinion the declaration of the abusive character of a clause which puts beginning or finishing under indetermination, as these timeframes are deemed essential by the Supreme Court, should lead to the possibility for the consumer to the reduction in
the price or termination of the contract.


Saying this under the doctrines on object contract loss, essential terms and cancellation, Articles 83 and 85 of Consumers Act Integration of contract clauses and article 2 and 3 of Act 57/68.



_______________________

Maria L. de Castro, JD, MA

Lawyer

Director www.costaluzlawyers.es

El blog de Maria


Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

28 Jan 2010 5:36 PM by Mikey2009 Star rating. 19 forum posts Send private message

Maria,

This makes a lot of sense and yes the seller should not dictate how long they can keep monies without actually starting work. But in this real world or should I say Polaris World and given their contract which has been written to their strenghts , where does all this fit in against their contracts? You have seen a copy of my contract signed from Polaris, but how would your statement above relate against it especially in a Murcia Court of Law and Valencia. Have we a case? Thanks




Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

03 Feb 2010 10:36 AM by Abolex Star rating in Andalucia - Murcia -.... 136 forum posts Send private message

Abolex´s avatar

Dear Mikey2009

Maria is right. In fact, there are already Court sentences against this developer confirming it.

Kind regards



_______________________
Martin de La Herran Sabick Abogado / Lawyer (reg. 851 Jerez) www.abolex.es


Like 0

Spam post or Abuse? Please let us know

Pages: 1 |
Post reply   Start new thread


Previous Threads

penthouse ready - 5 posts
construction of the town centre and island - 9 posts
Murcia International Airport - 0 posts
Construction?????? - 6 posts
New Photos of Terrazas - Christmas 09 - 1 posts
Top Quality Furniture for Quick Sale on Hacienda Riquelme - 3 posts
Polaris World files for bankruptcy protection - 6 posts
HEATING - 3 posts
Golf on Las Terrazas - see the evidence!! - 0 posts
Excellent - 1 posts
Air conditioning - 8 posts
polarisworld contract - 0 posts
New Pics & something for Island Purchasers - 2 posts
Aldea Advisors - 3 posts
the old phase 2 - 6 posts
Property wanted on La Torre 90k - 2 posts
Phase 12 - 2 bed penthouse apartment - 0 posts
Any advice please? - 1 posts
firniture packs - 0 posts
Community charges - 6 posts
new photos - 8 posts
Key Holders - 5 posts
More Photos - 3 posts
Town Centre - 2 posts
Can anybody help - 9 posts

3 posts were found:


1 |
Our Weekly Email Digest
Name:
Email:


This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More information here. x