ONCE AGAIN, VALENCIA COURT RULES THAT RELEASE AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE AGREED WITH SAN JOSE ON CREDITOR'S AGREEMENT DON'T APPLY TO BANK GUARANTEE. ITSN'T RELEVANT THAT CONTRACT CANCELLATION'S AGREEMENT STATED THAT PURCHASERS BREACHED THE PURCHASE CONTRACT
Other customers of us who bought in El Pinet (San Jose Inversiones) are getting the whole deposit, plus legal interest and defence cost paid by Banco Popular, although the cancellation agreement stated that they purchase contract was breached by them and, furhtermore, they voted in favor of the creditors' agreement.
Our clients signed a cancellation agreement (just wrote in Spanish), which stated that, as long as they refused to complete, they breached the purchase agreement. This agreement was authoirzed by the Bankruptcy Court. Later on, they voted in favor of the creditors' agreement.
After enforcing the bank guarantee, Bank claimed as defense that 57/68 Act didn't apply because contract was breached by purchaser. Bank claimed also that same release and payment schedule agreed with San Jose applied to Bank Guarantee. We plead to the Court for a favorable ruling, explaining that contract was initially breached by developer because habitation certificates were not approved by the time agreed for completion, and that was the reason why our clients didn't want to complete, no matter the wording of the cancellation agreement. Furthermore, we claimed that release and extension just apply to developer as long as there was no agreement between the bank and our clients to extend it to the bank guarantee, adding that 57/68 Act states that purchasers' rights cannot be waived.
Court's ruling, which has been notified today, agrees with us in full, and sentences Bank to pay deposit, plus legal interest and defense cost.