ANFI condemned by Court nº 1. Floating Contract and return of 9,526 pounds.

This is the judgment that I mentioned yesterday on my Social Networks (Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, where you can also follow my updates quicker).

It is a judgment of the Court of First Instance No. 1 of Maspalomas. This Court, together with No. 5, are the only two who are not holding Trials because they do not consider the interrogation of my clients necessary, so they issue a judgment directly after the Preliminary Hearing ("Audiencia Previa")

Read More

What is exactly what the Supreme Court has ruled? 

In general terms what the Supreme Court has ruled is that:

a) Undetermined object. Timeshare contracts must have a clearly determined and described object, according to the mandatory requirements set in the law. This is why floating or even apartments describes as "T1-2Bed", etc, are ilegal...

b) Indefinite period of time. It is not only that perpetuity contracts are null and void, any contract

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