¿Quien es Guadalupe. Lawyer?




Send Guadalupe. Lawyer a private message


Oh dear, this member hasn't provided any information yet.

Guadalupe. Lawyer's latest forum comments


12 Feb 2015 11:34 AM:

RESORT 3 MOLINOS: JUDGEMENT CONFIRMS THAT SANTADER BANK MUST REFUND DEPOSITS TO BUYERS ALTHOUGH NO INDIVIDUAL BANK GUARANTEES WERE GIVEN
 
New case won by GM LEGAL EXPERTS and new ruling that confirms that lack of individual bank guarantees isn't enforceable against purchasers. This time, the Bank sentenced to pay is Banco Santander.
 
More info about this case on http://www.gmlegalexperts.com
 


Thread: Tres Molinos, Murcia

--------------------------------------
12 Feb 2015 11:32 AM:

RESORT 3 MOLINOS: JUDGEMENT CONFIRMS THAT SANTADER BANK MUST REFUND DEPOSITS TO BUYERS ALTHOUGH NO INDIVIDUAL BANK GUARANTEES WERE GIVEN
 
New case won by GM LEGAL EXPERTS and new ruling that confirms that lack of individual bank guarantees isn't enforceable against purchasers. This time, the Bank sentenced to pay is Banco Santander.
 
 
More info on our website and blog: http://www.gmlegalexperts.com


Thread: Tres Molinos, Murcia

--------------------------------------
18 Sep 2014 12:11 PM:

 

HACIENDA BUENAVISTA (SIERRA MAR DEVELOPMENTS, MIJAS): BANCO POPULAR IS HELD LIABLE FOR BUYERS' DEPOSITS ALTHOUGH NO INDIVIDUAL OR GENERIC BANK GUARANTEES WERE GRANTED
 
Although no individual or generic bank guarantees were given, we claimed Banco Popular's liability under the provisions of the 1st article of the 57/58 Act First Instance Court from Marbella, because the account where deposits were paid into was really an special account, although Bank and Developer used the name "ordinary".
 
Our understanding is that the enforcement of mandatory laws must not depend on the good will of the parties and, obviously, should ensure protection for third parties acting in good faith (purchasers).
 
Luckily,  the Judge of the First Instance Court in Marbella was of the same opinion, and declared that account was really "special", no matter the name given by the parties, so Bank should have made sure that deposits were withdrawn just for building purposes, and should have also requested the delivery of bank guarantees for buyers whose deposits were paid into that account. Therefore, Banco Popular has been ordered to pay deposit plus legal interest to those purchasers.
 
This kind of judgements are unusual, but it seems that Courts are finally moving forward on purchasers' protection justice and their knowledge and awareness about the 57/68 Act is increasing.


Thread: GM LEGAL EXPERTS WON CASE

--------------------------------------
18 Sep 2014 12:01 PM:

 

GM LEGAL EXPERTS WON CASE

 
HACIENDA BUENAVISTA (SIERRA MAR DEVELOPMENTS, MIJAS): BANCO POPULAR IS HELD LIABLE FOR BUYERS' DEPOSITS ALTHOUGH NO INDIVIDUAL OR GENERIC BANK GUARANTEES WERE GRANTED
 
Although no individual or generic bank guarantees were given, we claimed Banco Popular's liability under the provisions of the 1st article of the 57/58 Act First Instance Court from Marbella, because the account where deposits were paid into was really an special account, although Bank and Developer used the name "ordinary".
 
Our understanding is that the enforcement of mandatory laws must not depend on the good will of the parties and, obviously, should ensure protection for third parties acting in good faith (purchasers).
 
Luckily,  the Judge of the First Instance Court in Marbella was of the same opinion, and declared that account was really "special", no matter the name given by the parties, so Bank should have made sure that deposits were withdrawn just for building purposes, and should have also requested the delivery of bank guarantees for buyers whose deposits were paid into that account. Therefore, Banco Popular has been ordered to pay deposit plus legal interest to those purchasers.
 
This kind of judgements are unusual, but it seems that Courts are finally moving forward on purchasers' protection justice and their knowledge and awareness about the 57/68 Act is increasing.

 



Thread: Success claiming under a bank guarantee

--------------------------------------
18 Sep 2014 11:59 AM:

 

HACIENDA BUENAVISTA (SIERRA MAR DEVELOPMENTS, MIJAS): BANCO POPULAR IS HELD LIABLE FOR BUYERS' DEPOSITS ALTHOUGH NO INDIVIDUAL OR GENERIC BANK GUARANTEES WERE GRANTED
 
Although no individual or generic bank guarantees were given, we claimed Banco Popular's liability under the provisions of the 1st article of the 57/58 Act First Instance Court from Marbella, because the account where deposits were paid into was really an special account, although Bank and Developer used the name "ordinary".
 
Our understanding is that the enforcement of mandatory laws must not depend on the good will of the parties and, obviously, should ensure protection for third parties acting in good faith (purchasers).
 
Luckily,  the Judge of the First Instance Court in Marbella was of the same opinion, and declared that account was really "special", no matter the name given by the parties, so Bank should have made sure that deposits were withdrawn just for building purposes, and should have also requested the delivery of bank guarantees for buyers whose deposits were paid into that account. Therefore, Banco Popular has been ordered to pay deposit plus legal interest to those purchasers.
 
This kind of judgements are unusual, but it seems that Courts are finally moving forward on purchasers' protection justice and their knowledge and awareness about the 57/68 Act is increasing.


Thread: GM LEGAL EXPERTS WON CASE

--------------------------------------

Guadalupe. Lawyer' blogs


Guadalupe. Lawyer's rentals

Guadalupe. Lawyer's properties for sale


Spain insurance services


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