Confirmed the invalidity of a Clip Bankinter (swap) in La Rioja

clip bankinter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Provincial Court of Rioja, confirmed the invalidity of a swap contract called "Clip Bankinter Extra" in sentence 26 May 2014.

A limited partnership, dedicated to transport, contract year 2008 a Clip Bankinter Extra 8.6. The swap was contracted Bank initiative. Signatories had no experience in complex banking contracts, not informed properly, No drills were made, they were not warned of possible adverse economic consequences. The cost of cancellation was not clearly set. The contract was difficult to understand

Given the losses caused by the product, demand to the bank and the Court of First Instance declares Logroño Extra Clip nullity of the contract Bankinter.

The bank, not comply with the ruling, appeals to the Provincial Court, claiming that there was no error in the consent.

For Provincial Court, to the position to which the sufferer an error must be tested and the obligation to properly inform the financial institution, opts for the bank's obligation to inform properly, citing the judgments of the AP of Burgos 28 November 2012, AP Valladolid in Case 19 November 2012, AP Alicante in Case 25 October 2012 or AP Oviedo 31 May 2012.

Is, the information provided it must be in writing or another durable medium, so requires as art. 62 of RD 21/2008 for financial instruments. In summary, is the financial institution that has to try to have fulfilled the obligation of information that affects you.

After reviewing the applicable law, concludes that the legislature has been increasingly protectionist with customers as they are the financial institutions that design the product and offering it to their customers should make an effort to be properly informed of the risks.

In this case, was the bank which led to the plaintiff, that had no experience in risk products as the undersigned and his profile was that of retail.

The contract is considered no simple, Simulations were done not, and the manager thought he hired insurance for coverage against fluctuations in interest rates. It is considered that there was lack of information, which vitiated consent so that invalidated the entire contract.

The cancellation clause without specifying their cost, may not benefit the bank and should be declared null.

Ultimately, dismissing the appeal of the bank, and the sentence is confirmed, is declared void the contract with mutual recovery of benefits, with the bank to pay costs.

Consult your case now

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required