Court Ruling Non-Completors

There is an article today on Murcia Today that the Courts in Murcia have ruled, on the legal action taken by 2 buyers, who refused to complete based on the lack of promoted facilities on the sales literature

The judgement is that there are no ground to refuse to complete as the facilities were delivered and now that they have to complete at the original contract price and I understand from a third party that they also have a hefty legal bill, as at the time when the properties were legally completed there was a golf course, spa, clubhouse and community facilities

As I have explained in the past really the sales contracts only actually specified the property, community facilities and the course and therefore no real legal grounds not to complete

Now the developer has grounds to pursue the many people that didn't complete as there are still many contracts that the developers have left open and they had been waittng for the result from this case, before taking more actions

The developer can possibly not only seek completion at the original price but all outstanding community fees, which is ironic as the developers have never paid them

Mmmmmmm, I'd love to see that upheld on appeal, Caildona had no luck chasing buyers on Roda who did not complete, they still effectively own a number of apartments on Phase 3.

Not surprising Murcia Courts would support a local developer but I think in many other areas, promised facilities would be considered part and parcel of a contract but Spanish Lawcstill works in mysterious ways.

i wonder how an EU court would view the decision?

My information tells me that they may not be going to appeal because of the costs so far as of course the lawyers certainly are not acting on a no win no fee basis and they assured the buyers that they would win

The other problem is that they were clever and only included in the contracts what what they would deliver which is why they rushed to finish the clubhouse gym and spa

Thge biggest difference on Corvera, unlike RODA is that you are talking hundreds of properties, an interested case for a lawyer now to go after

Did the developers fail to meet time constraints as stipulated in the purchase contract? Were LFO ' s provided prior to any end dates stipulated in the contract? Surely this together with non provision of facilities by the purchase contract end dates, if stipulated in the marketing literature (which by law is deemed part of the contract) would be sufficient to prove developer breach?

If no end dates were identified in the purchase contract would this be deemed to be abusive?

Perhaps Maria could clarify these points of law?

This message was last edited by ads on 31/08/2016.

The developers had all of the required paperwork in place when they requested completiom including LFO's the community facilties were completed and lifts working, the contracts had end dates and there was one phase that they didn't build

The contracts, as I said before, did not refference the commercial facilities like the commercial centre, medical facilities and hotel, this was on;y in the sales literature and it seems that the courts have now ruled that this wasn't part of a contract where in another area and court they ruled it was

If there were any abusive terms in the contract I am certian that this would have been more easily resolved and lawyers would have been pushing this

This court ruling is very significant for anybody with an outstanding contract

Was this a first instance court ruling that discounted the marketing literature as not being considered part of the contract, or was it from an appeal ruling acting as case law or jurisprudence? The point being that if jurisprudence or SC doctrine has already been established to indicate that marketing literature is considered to be part of the contract (which I thought Maria had identified in the past), then surely this would be deemed a contra legem ruling would it not?

The question then becomes, is developer non adherence to marketing literature by the date stipulated in the purchase contract sufficient in its own right to be deemed a developer breach, or is it only when it is accompanied by other legal breaches, such as non provision of LFO by the agreed completion date as stipulated in the contract?

Perhaps Maria could clarify?

Oops, posted something on the wrong thread, so now deleted!

This message was last edited by ads on 31/08/2016.

I believe Maria may have been involved in Corvera cases that were lost by purchasers in first case, so may well not wish to comment.

It will do no favours to Spain if it is perceived in any way or form as being protectionist by protecting developers who falsely market their products, so let's hope this is not the case at Corvera. Any abusive malpractices need to be legally outlawed if trust is to be restored to the Spanish real estate market. Likewise with contract law, where mutually agreed end dates and inalienable rights for legal Bank Guarantees and protection of offplan deposited monies and timely legal licences should be respected in the eyes of the law.

This message was last edited by ads on 02/09/2016.

I agree Ads but you know what?

I don't think Spain cares how it is perceived.

Logic is at times an alien concept.

This is Spain, take it or leave it!

A deeply distressing outcome for the depositors.  They were sold a complete pup.  This decison was made in a local court and ther can be no surprise that the outcome was found in favour of the developer. 

It's dreadful that it seems to have taken so long to come to this decision at a local level.  It is enough to weaken the strongest resolve and the deepest pocket.  It is surely designed to weaken the possibility of appeal.

My understanding of this situation has always been that units were sold on the understanding that the development would be a high end luxury resort.  The hotel was an integral part of this.  The De Vere link was crucial and a major part of the marketing.  However if you delve deeply it is apparent that there was never a formal contract between De Vere and Calidona.  It's outrageous that the literature produced by Calidona should have included the De Vere branding IMO.

I believe EU funding was made available to build a hotel on Corvera on the basis it would generate employment.  Whether it was recieved might be worth looking at.  Although Calidona sensibly made a point of forming several separate legal identities to deal with different parts of its business and will therefore be prepared to wipe it's hands of any responsibilities.

If this judgement is being based strictly upon what was delivered it might be worth reviewing exactly what was built in comparison to what was signed for in the plans ie looking at aspect, actual square meterage, specification of finish etc.  But that's a pretty long shot.

The question remains does marketing literature form part of the contract according to law, and if not does this now mean that all new contracts MUST specify such detail, and if they don't are these contracts deemed to be abusive if they are proven to be " out of line" with marketing literature?

The Spanish Real Estate professionals and legal profession should be pushing for a trusted legal solution to this if purchaser trust is to be restored in Spain.

The product being sold presumably had a price tag that reflected this "high end resort" with all promised conveniences as declared in the literature and forms an integral part of the purchaser decision making process? Surely non delivery of product  to encompass ALL advertised detail that was reflected in the asking price and detailed literature is sufficient to gain cancellation of purchase contract is it not?