All EOS blogs All Spain blogs  Start your own blog Start your own blog 

El blog de Maria

Your daily Spanish Law reporter. Have it with a cafe con leche. www.costaluzlawyers.es

Legal tip 725. Murcia Appeal Courts states Polaris has breached contracts
11 March 2012 @ 00:41

 Despite it does not conclude that breaches by Polaris on facilities offered in publicity gives to buyer the right to cancel the contrat and obtain the refund of all money paid, IT DOES ACKNOWLEDGE the breaches in relation to lack of advertised facilities which,obviously, as the Court states ,  might GIVE buyers/owners RIGHTS to important price reductions. A fifteen years deadline from completion is available to this aim.

Time to complete at real prices in Polaris or obtain a good compensation in relation to properties you own there

Maria

 

ElGastor

"ElGastor", Cadiz, Spain, by El Pantera, at flickr.com



Like 0      




11 Comments

Sunil Bhatti said:
12 March 2012 @ 17:21

Hi Maria
I purchased an apartment in phase 2 at Las Terrazas and although I enjoy my visits the lack of the promised facilities by Polaris World is very annoying. There is no bar,shops,tennis courts etc. All these facilities were still being promised to potential new purchasers at polaris offices Feb 2012 when I visited.Can we do anything about this now we have completed.

regards

Sunil Bhatti
s.bhatti@blueyonder.co.uk




Anne said:
12 March 2012 @ 22:38

Did I read that correctly.... Polaris are still promising facilities to new purchasers?
Where exactly does the law stand on false marketing now Maria?
How can purchasers possibly believe anything they are told relating to ANY purchase in Spain, if the law does not protect them from this abusive malpractice?
New purchasers won't want to purchase a product that might fail to meet its marketing literature under the security that compensation might be made available if the developer fails to meet their obligations...... it's a nonsense to expect new purchasers in Spain to be exposed to this level of uncertainty and risk.... never knowing where the next falsehood will arise and what end result they will have to live with.
Surely promised facilities from the outset are a major factor in the choice of property, and the lack of promised facilities as per the marketing literature would surely be considered a breach????
Is this judicial ruling consistent with other rulings elsewhere Maria, or is this a "rogue" ruling?


Maria said:
13 March 2012 @ 09:30

Dear Anne:

The reasoning of the Murcia Appeal Court is that as the project is very big, all contained in publicity will be delivered along the time. If not delivered cancellation might be possible. No grounds for cancellation now but possibly in the future.

I fully agree with you on the unfairness of the ruling but at least, Appeal Court is leaving the gate opened to right compansation now and to articulate actions by which the absence of facilities can drive to cancellation in the future.

Spain´s Supreme Court is also clear on lack of advertised features and facilities as enough for compensation.


Anne said:
13 March 2012 @ 16:34

Thank you Maria.
Does this now mean that anyone purchasing in Spain may have to wait 15 years before they could claim any form of compensation if advertised facilities are not made available?
Doesn't this effectively now result in chaos for the real estate industry as ALL advertised literature relating to Spanish purchase can no longer be relied upon in the eyes of the law? How many purchasers would be willing to wait 15 years before their "dream" becomes reality?
Perhaps I have misunderstood ?


Maria said:
13 March 2012 @ 16:39

Dear Anne:

Not exactly.
There are many intermediate solutions judges can work out. From yearly compensation to owners, to yearly contributions by developers/banks to the completion of facilities.

It would be nice if dialogue between affected buyers, developers and Bank could consistently start and remain for the restoration of rights in these cases where the advertised facilities are missing.

Developers and Banks are still not too dialogue available, from our experience

Kindest,

Maria

Ps.- What would you suggest Anne? Keith?


Anne said:
13 March 2012 @ 16:45

Thank you Maria.
Does this now mean that anyone purchasing in Spain may have to wait 15 years before they could claim any form of compensation if advertised facilities are not made available?
Doesn't this effectively now result in chaos for the real estate industry as ALL advertised literature relating to Spanish purchase can no longer be relied upon in the eyes of the law? How many purchasers would be willing to wait 15 years before their "dream" becomes reality?
Perhaps I have misunderstood ?


Anne said:
13 March 2012 @ 17:20

Sorry for the duplicate posting, don't know what happened there!
Maria, the law can't be cherry picked in this way as it leaves purchasers unprotected.
The law should be enforced as it was intended and either advertised literature does form part of the purchase contract or it doesn't.
If it doesn't, then no-one can safely purchase property in Spain as they will be purchasing a moving target, never knowing what form the final product will take.


Anne said:
13 March 2012 @ 18:01

I forgot to add that any "promised" facilities included in the marketing literature that were intended to be included at some later stage, should have had legally enforceable timescales attached. Wouldn't this be considered part of the conveyancing lawyers responsibility and due diligence to check and protect their client against such open-ended anomolies within the purchase contract?


Peter said:
13 March 2012 @ 22:09

The case sends a clear signal to buyers - don't believe what developers tell you when you buy. This case is a joke as if you can't rely on what they tell you when you buy off plan, what can you rely on? This case is a death nail for new build projects as no one will buy off plan IN ANTICIPATION OF FACILITUES BEING BUILT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE!


Ken said:
14 March 2012 @ 18:24

The decision could be a compromise to open a dialogue between the developers and customers.

I am sure that for the good of all concerned it would be better to have an amicable agreement rather than one which does no good for the recovery of the spanish property market.


Maria said:
14 March 2012 @ 18:35

I fully agree with you Ken.

I would love to be able to stablish good communication with Polaris, which we do not have at present moment.

I am sure that having also Banks open to dialogue and sacrifice, good settlements could be achieved.



Only registered users can comment on this blog post. Please Sign In or Register now.