Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 6:33:40 GMT
The scope of the guarantees of this law extends to “the construction of housing that is not officially protected, intended for home or family residence, on a permanent basis or for seasonal, accidental or circumstantial residence. That is, the rule protects the consumer, even if he or she has not purchased the home with the intention of living in it permanently. The same does not happen with those that have been purchased for speculative purposes. In this sense, it was concluded that the plaintiff had “acquired the failed home for residential purposes, there being no evidence that the affected person was professionally engaged in real estate or intermediation activity or real estate investments and there was also no evidence that he was the owner of other real estate. ”. Furthermore, personal circumstances allowed us to conclude that the property was going to be used as a primary residence .
The Supreme Court has established in its doctrine that, in Fax Lists these cases, taking into account the second condition of article 1 of Law 57/1968, credit institutions that admit income from buyers into a promoter's account without requiring the opening of a special account and the corresponding guarantee will be liable to buyers for the total amounts advanced by the buyers and deposited into the account or accounts that the promoter has open in said entity. Thus, Cajamar "is not an entity separate from the relationship between buyer and developer-seller, but must actively collaborate with the latter in order to ensure that it complies with its legal obligations."
An official from the entity itself recognized that Cajamar financed the housing development to which the plaintiff's planned home belonged, and that he was aware of the activity of the development company that ended up going into bankruptcy, Danyser. “The set of circumstances expressed evidence that (…) Cajamar did know or was in a position to know that the remittances of bills came from the amounts advanced for the sale of properties under construction and appeared in the purchase and sale contract as the entity that would have signed also a line of guarantees in order to guarantee refunds of payments from buyers (...) and it is proven that the defendant did not require the developer to open a separate and duly guaranteed special account.
The Supreme Court has established in its doctrine that, in Fax Lists these cases, taking into account the second condition of article 1 of Law 57/1968, credit institutions that admit income from buyers into a promoter's account without requiring the opening of a special account and the corresponding guarantee will be liable to buyers for the total amounts advanced by the buyers and deposited into the account or accounts that the promoter has open in said entity. Thus, Cajamar "is not an entity separate from the relationship between buyer and developer-seller, but must actively collaborate with the latter in order to ensure that it complies with its legal obligations."
An official from the entity itself recognized that Cajamar financed the housing development to which the plaintiff's planned home belonged, and that he was aware of the activity of the development company that ended up going into bankruptcy, Danyser. “The set of circumstances expressed evidence that (…) Cajamar did know or was in a position to know that the remittances of bills came from the amounts advanced for the sale of properties under construction and appeared in the purchase and sale contract as the entity that would have signed also a line of guarantees in order to guarantee refunds of payments from buyers (...) and it is proven that the defendant did not require the developer to open a separate and duly guaranteed special account.