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.

Legal tip 642. Brave Valladolid Judge on contract balance!
30 November 2011 @ 11:59

In line with modernity and Consumers protection, this Case Law produced by the Provintial Appeal Court who speaks the best Spanish ( Valladolid is known as being the part of the model Spanish language speaking :)).

Dated the 28th of October 2011:

Relevant points:

1) Delay when selling properties off plan gives always cancellation rights to buyer. There is no need for the Judge to valuate the delay as important or not and every delay is cancellatory in these cases

2) Cancellation is also possible despite the existence of First Occupation License if the property is not delivered to owner for other reasons ( lack of horizontal division...)

3) Cancellation just requires a "fall of the business interest for the buyer" against old doctrines which required a persistent will or obstacle to contract fulfilment.  This is the line followed by the Supreme Court.

4) Lack of Bank Guarantee can never damage the buyer regarding his rights for effective refund

Such a brilliant understanding and exposition of Law 57/68. Good!


Acala de los Gazules

"Alcalá de los Gazules", Cádiz, Spain, by Alcalaina, at

Like 0


Rosemary said:
30 November 2011 @ 11:14

I feel like it is all talk. What good are all these laws; all these judges profound statements etc if the law cannot or is not enforced. Where is the justice, do the Courts actually care what happens once they pass the sentence?

Keith said:
30 November 2011 @ 11:25

Another excellent decision María. Add this one to Madrid, Burgos, Valencia, Murcia etc and we can see that very slowly the tide is turning in favour of the consumer.

Keep them coming!

Kind regards


Keith said:
30 November 2011 @ 12:21

I agree Rosemary. Being able to execute the judgement is just as important as obtaining the judgement in the first place.

The problem is that if you only get judgement against the developer then more often than not they have asset stripped or gone into administration - then it makes it very hard to get a successful execution and return of your money.

But if you have judgement against the Bank then it will be far easier to execute the judgement and obtain a refund.

It has been a very long and tough fight. But slowly things are changing. More judges are beginning to provide sound judgements based on the true meaning of LEY 57/68.

Kind regards


Poppyseed said:
30 November 2011 @ 16:00

And it is all thanks to those who fought and stood up and been counted and not the I'm alright Jacks who have persistently said lick your wounds and get over it, move on, you were stupid/naive, give us all a break from from your whineging we don't want to hear it. Nothing would ever change if everyone just lay down and kept quiet. Well done to all the campaigners who wouldn't lie down, I'm sure many people will be in your debt.

Keith said:
01 December 2011 @ 09:53

Thanks for the kind words and encouragement Poppyseed.

We will keep fighting!

Kind regards


Maria said:
01 December 2011 @ 09:57

Yes, thanks Poppyseed.
I would say that, in our case, it is a professional duty for which we get paid, but Keith is an authentic heroe giving a lot out of his own life and time! Good for Keith!

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


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