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
This is a video that circulates on the Internet and that clearly shows the handling and manipulation that has been practicing Silverpoint, and its group of companies, during all these years. Read More
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
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
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
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
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
Timeshares are owned by about 600,000 people in the UK but some have had problems trying to relinquish them.
Firms like Sellmytimeshare.tv, owned by Monster, say they can help dispose of them but an undercover investigation found it is more complex than it seems... Read More
There have been a few rulings recently from the Supreme Court, seven after the summer break against in which Clubs, such as Anfi, Puerto Calma or Palm Oasis, have been condemned to return to their clients certain amounts they paid, declaring their contracts ... Read More