105 Supreme Court judgements so far...

Today I’ve checked again how many sentences of the Supreme Court are about Timeshare. Currently there are, at least, 105, from which 42 belong to Silverpoint, 37 to Anfi, 8 to Palm Oasis and 6 to Puerto Calma plus a few others. Impressive, all this since 2015...

The psychology of time pressured sales

Very interesting article that I read here and reproduce below for an easier reading:

"During the holiday season, you can see several advertisements that are based on the psychology of time pressured sales and the “fear of missing out” or ‘FOMO’ mentality.   Phrases like “act now” and “limited time offer” are frequently used in advertising to prompt consumers to reduce speculation about the purchase, and pull the trigger to make a positive purchase decision.

Read More

Court Victory against Silverpoint Vacations, S.L. (2)

Court of First Instance num. 3 of Arona.
Ordinary Proceedings 367/2015.

Your honor, Dña. María de los Angles Antón Padilla, declared the contract signed between my client and Silverpoint null and void because there were no reference to its termination date and the object had not been described as article 9.1.3 of Law 42/98 requires.

Read More

Interesting article on Supreme Court ruling No. 74/2015 of 15 January on perpetual clauses against Anfi's contracts.

I have recently come across this article, written by professor Joaquín J. Forner that published in the International Company and Commercial Law Review, 2015 [Sent September 2015]. For its undoubted interest I reproduce it below:

"Nullity of Contracts. Timesharing. Inter Temporal Law. Norwegian Claimant. Spanish Supreme Court, Civil Division. Judgement of 15 January 2015 (74/2014) (XV. ANFI SALES, SL) by Joaquin-J Forner.

Read More

Court victory against Silverpoint Vacations, S.L (1)

Your honor, Dña. Etelvina López Jiménez, declared the contract signed between my client and Silverpoint null and void because there were no reference to its termination date and the object had not been described as article 9.1.3 of Law 42/98 requires. The client is considered a consumer and is granted the return of all the money paid for the signing of the contract as well as the amounts received on the same day of signing. Surprisingly is not awarded legal costs. This concrete legal aspect will be appealed in due course.

Read More

What does the EU say about Timeshare?

Timeshare and other long-term holiday contracts in the EU (original source)

Buying a traditional timeshare - the right to spend more than one period of time in the course of more than one year in a given property or properties - can be quite a minefield. The same is true of joining a long-term holiday scheme, such as a discount holiday club, which gives the right to discounts on accommodation or related benefits, sometimes in combination with travel or other services, for more than one year.

Read More

Silverpoint. Second Supreme Court ruling, nº 19/2017

STS no. 19 of 17-01-2017. Appeal no. 3064-2014, on Perpetuity, Trade Ins, Trans amount and maintenance quotas.

Sentence nº 19/2017 has been Supreme Court's second sentence and has very little to do with the previous one, number 16/17, since it doesn't deal with Club Paradiso or address to the issue of whether buyers are investors or consumers. This ruling examines a Hollywood Mirage Club contract and the main issues are: perpetuity, amounts brought from other contracts (Trade In), amounts brought from previous contracts (Trans amounts) and maintenance fees.

Read More

Silverpoint and the recent Supreme Court rulings, nº 16/2017

STS no. 16 of 16-01-2017. Appeal no. 2718-2014, on Club Paradiso and investment schemes.

The first judgment of the Supreme Court has proved to be a real surprise for many, although expected by others (among which I include myself). There have been many proceedings before the Courts of First Instance and the Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife (now onwards, Court of Appeal or just CoA) against the group of companies headed by

Read More

Breaking news! The Supreme Court has declared a Club Paradiso contract null and void

Yes, the Supreme Court has declared that the Vacation Club known as Club Paradiso was not really a club of that kind and that was really timeshare, consequently and not complying with Law 42/98 had to declare the contract null and void. More news once I manage to read the full decision.

Here is the news (in Spanish): 


More info in this web here