Supreme Court and Bank liabilities 57/68

Legal tip 1170. NEW! 4 New Supreme Court decissions for Banks liabilities out of Law 57/68 
20 June 2014 @ 14:07 
 

Maria, please can you explain the meaning of your second paragraph. ? 

For example Herrada del Tollo / San Jose builders, declared themselves into voluntary administration in 2009. No purchasers had either the knowledge or even the opportunity to cancel contracts for a very long time afterwards. Because the builders and the legal system allowed themselves a massive advantage for delay in failing to deliver.

Does this now mean the banks have an escape from their responsibility under law 57/68  ?

Regards

Broph:

In that case, I cannot see a Judge understanding your lack of cancellation activity is due to "bad faith"
 

In any event, retrospective attempts to deny purchasers of their inalienable rights and cancellation rights (via whatever source) according to existing law would be in contravention of the rule of law and the principal of legal certainty would it not Maria? Doesn't this example demonstrate the need to safeguard the rule of law and principal of legal certainty in Spain?

To repeat, Keith Rule has identified that the Bank of Spain has failed in its duty to verify compliance with Banking regulations, and has failed to ensure that Banks and Savings Banks under its supervision comply with the "obligations imposed by LEY 57/68 on financial institutions"...... that “Banks have used purchasers unsecured deposit funds to lessen the exposure to the various developments". .... that "the Bank of Spain was the vehicle through which illegalities were performed."

Given all of the above surely Banks liabilities according to Ley 57/68 cannot, nor should be retrospectively "cherry picked" in this manner?

What message will this send with regard to adherence to existing Spanish law if Banks are not made liable and purchasers' inalienable rights are disrespected in this manner? The implications are wide reaching.

In any event, retrospective attempts to deny purchasers of their inalienable rights and cancellation rights (via whatever source) according to existing law would be in contravention of the rule of law and the principal of legal certainty would it not Maria? Doesn't this example demonstrate the need to safeguard the rule of law and principal of legal certainty in Spain?

To repeat, Keith Rule has identified that the Bank of Spain has failed in its duty to verify compliance with Banking regulations, and has failed to ensure that Banks and Savings Banks under its supervision comply with the "obligations imposed by LEY 57/68 on financial institutions"...... that “Banks have used purchasers unsecured deposit funds to lessen the exposure to the various developments". .... that "the Bank of Spain was the vehicle through which illegalities were performed."

Given all of the above surely Banks liabilities according to Ley 57/68 cannot, nor should be retrospectively "cherry picked" in this manner?

What message will this send with regard to adherence to existing Spanish law if Banks are not made liable and purchasers' inalienable rights are disrespected in this manner? The implications are wide reaching.