Are you entitled to remuneration mediator selling a floor when it was made in different terms to managers?
Can you have purchased a property off plan, refuse delivery at term by construction?
In the judgment of the Audiencia Provincial de Zamora by June 1 of 2011 criterion is added to the subject.
The builder sells a house in a private contract in 2007, giving the buyer a note and pledging amounts, to the delivery of housing, to pay the remainder by the constitution a mortgage or cash on delivery.
The property is completed within the agreed. The construction, after obtaining the license burofax Occupation sends the buyer to go to the notary to grant deed and the buyer does not appear nor opposes.
The construction demand the buyer to fulfill the contract. Buyer objects on the grounds that it had been agreed that the construction would facilitate funding subrogation.
First, we give the buyer reason. The construction appeals and district court finally ruled in favor of the construction, based on the following arguments:
“The construction contract is bilateral, produces mutually reciprocal obligations or synallagmatic: each of the parts, is the time, creditor and debtor of respective obligations, linked together by a reciprocal or synallagma. Says S 15 November 1993: the synallagma is in the genesis of the obligatory relationship, constituting the duty of providing a party the cause which obliges the other. The second question relates to one of the effects of any reciprocal obligation: if the creditor requires the fulfillment of mutual obligation to the debtor, He has attained without, the debtor may oppose the call “exceptional adimpleti not contractus”, that is not specifically regulated in the civil code but from Articles 1100, 1124 and 1308 and has been consistently applied by the jurisprudence: sentences, inter oldest, of 10 January 1991 , 9 July 1991 , 3 December 1992 , 15 November 1993 , 21 March 1994 , 8 June 1996 , another of the same date 8 June 1986 and the 29 October 1996 . However, the debtor alleging this “exceptional adimpleti not contractus” the must be based on real and effective failure of the other party, that frustrate the purpose of the contract, not suffice defective performance of the obligation. So, the S 21 March 1994 says: …exception “exceptional adimpleti not contractus”…requires true and proper main breach of any obligation under the contract, they can not lean over and a defective performance.. .. Moreover, says S 13 May 1985 that “if the success of such unfulfilled contract except properly is conditional on the defect of the work is of some importance or significance in relation to the aim pursued and the ease or difficulty of your cure , making it unfit to satisfy the interest of the client , is clear that it can be invoked when poorly performed or omitted lacks sufficient entity in relation to how well executed and the interest of the client is satisfied with the work given or offered, so that the requirement of good faith and the principle of conservation of the contract does not authorize the exercise of adjudicative action and only allow track reparation, either by performing specific corrective operations, either via a consequent reduction of the price -SS 21 November 1971 , 17 January 1975 , 15 March and 3 October 1979 -“;
Namely, defective performance that does not involve the termination of the contract if no correction of defects or a price reduction. But the main contract is still in force.
seven days from receipt of the notification the agreed sale price.
In case of breach of the commitment contained herein for reasons attributable to the grantor, shall be bound to repay the option premium plus another equal amount by way of damages without having to prove the same. "
The grantor, not fulfill its commitment, returns double premium and sold the site to a triplet. The elector claims before the court for the alleged breach of the grantor.
The Supreme Court, agrees with the grantor, establishing that:
“ (…) forgetting that the parties, as al article 1255 can add covenants that would not distort the legal business, but to modify its contents typical, which shall be binding on them, as al article 1256. Therefore, no such rules have been violated, but have been observed. Clause sixth , foregoing, provides for the withdrawal by both sides, in the first paragraph the elector (“… not exercise the option…”) and in the second paragraph, the grantor (“… breach of commitment contained herein for reasons attributable to the grantor…”) imposing a penalty on the first (“…the transferor will retain the premium…”) and second (“… restore option premium plus another equal amount in damages and damages…”). It does not appear any cause raising doubts about its validity and does not denature the typical content of the option, but imposes a forecast and a penalty for one and another party .....(….)”.
Therefore, you may purchase the option to add a covenant by which the grantor is granted the right to be free of sales commitment.