Maria, Thank you for your replies in green on the other thread relating to this.
With regard to the following:
Under the assumption that developers have breached their contract and cannot meet their financial obligations to return monies to the offplan purchaser, could you please clarify the following (with emphasis on Bank appeals).
Does this now mean that the Supreme Court have finally recognised the wider principle that BANKS who funded offplan developments have a legal obligation according to Ley 57/68 to comply with the requirement that BANKS should have checked that all developers (whom they financed for these offplan developments), had made provision for legal Bank Guarantees and secure accounts, and that these should have been made available to all offplan purchasers associated with any given offplan development? Thus making the Banks ultimately responsible for return of deposited monies for non provision of legal BG's.
Supreme Court has yet not set Jurisprudencia on this. Alwways know that liability of provision 1segundo of Law 57/68 is of the Bank which received buyers amounts.
What the Supreme is saying in this recent Court decission is that the Bank overmortgaging properties without caring for buyers rights, clrearly known of buyers off plan deposits as it had issued a line of Guarantees in same development
So long as there is no Supreme Court jurisprudence on this wider principle for Banks to be ultimately responsible for return of deposited monies when they have placed purchasers at risk by not complying with the required checks, does this still leave clients vulnerable to contra legem rulings by the judiciary?
Also, Maria, with regard to the following:
"Does this now strengthen the legal argument that Banks should not be able to appeal against successful first instance rulings in all cases where legal BG 's and/or secure accounts were not made available? Appeal is part of the fundamental right to Court protection."
Why then is the Supreme Court denying admission for appeal for purchasers exposed to contra legem appeal rulings (such aspects as non recognition of illegal extensions/illegal BG's/non provision of LFO according to mutually agreed end dates as per contracts, aspects associated with legal certainty and adherence to European directives relating to unfair terms in consumer contracts to the detriment of the consumer, etc)? Is this not in itself a failure to recognise purchaser's fundamental right to effective judicial protection?
This message was last edited by ads on 26/01/2015.
This message was last edited by ads on 27/01/2015.