The dangers of bills of exchange

letras de cambio

letras de cambio letra de cambio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bills of exchange may cause serious trouble to make the payment to be, especially when you do not have to accept possession of the.

The bill of exchange is a tool that facilitates the commercial rotation ensuring collection by the holder of the bill. This strengthening of the possibility of recovery of the fork is supported by a party to the exchange trial, and another in limiting the possibilities of opposing exceptions of the drawee (natural or legal person who has to make the payment). The drawee can only assert against the holder of the bill of exceptions based on their personal relations with him: You can not oppose the exceptions arising from the relationship with the drawer (is issuing the letter, provider usually well). Regulation in Articles 20 and 67 of la Exchange Act and Cheques.

To clarify the problems that can be generated, going to see a case, has been resolved by the Supreme Court Judgment 24 April 2014 (STS 2139/2014).

One Person plan on purchasing housing for Fadesa Inmobiliaria S.A.. Burgos. For the payment of the first quantities to account, promoter (drawer) emits two bills of exchange the 20 June 2007, for a total of 24.038 euros, that customer accepts (rid). These lyrics due on 20 December 2009 and 5 January 2010. The two letters are discounted by the Bank Santander 28 December 2007.

In July 2008, the developer is declared in contest and asks the termination of the contract of sale for breach of the seller, which is agreed by the bankruptcy judge the 15 March 2011.

The claim by Banco Santander exchange demand judgment against the drawee acceptor (the Home Buyer) the amount of the two letters, plus interest and costs (amounting to more than 7.000 euros). The Home Buyer, opposes the lawsuit alleging extinction credit exchange (art. 67.3 ESA) and lack of standing or lack of action (art 67.2 ESA). He says that you should not apply the special scheme LCCH but the DA. First of Law 38/1999 management of the building and the Law 57/1968 on amounts paid on account of the price of future housing. This law requires entering a especiar account such amounts and secure them or avalarlas.

At first demand is estimated: The relationship between home buyer (rid) and promoter (drawer) can not oppose to the third party (Bank) because it was not a party to the contract of sale. Failure to comply with the obligations imposed by the Act 54/1968 promoter, not affect the holder of the letters (Bank) by not stating that the bank knew that failure.

Would be referred to the Provincial Court, confirming the criterion the Court of First Instance.

So the Home Buyer (fork), presents appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing first that The Bank Rate is an assignment of rights and the grounds relied the drawer (developer) are effective against the assignee (Bank). Secondly say the discounting bills was null for breach of a peremptory norm as the Law 57/1968: the letters should have been admitted to a special account.

The Supreme Court rejected both arguments.

The bank (holder of the bill) has exchange action against the acceptor Letter (in this case the home buyer). The bank is a third party to the underlying relationship from which derives the exchange action (the trading floor). The acceptor (buyer) can not oppose exceptions founded on their personal relations with the drawer (developer), at Articles 20 and 67.1 the LCCH, unless the holder (Bank), to acquire the letter, he acted knowingly to the detriment of the debtor. Furthermore, this "Exceptio doli" acting in bad faith or bank must be tested by the debtor.

On the other hand, Non compliance in terms of Act 57/1968, for Supreme Court, the sponsor may deduct points for liquidity. The proceeds of these, should have been applied to a special account. But this fact, not affect the right of descontante bank to go against the drawee in case of default. In this case, the bank was not the trustee for the special accounts or granting guarantees to which the Act refers. Y la financial institution has no obligation to know the origin of the letters that are delivered for discount.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal and the buyer is left homeless and penniless.

The sentence has a particular opinion by Justice D. Ignacio Sancho Gargallo, adherend D. Rafael Saraza Jimena, disagreeing with the opinion of the room, indicating that the annulment should be taken off. However, the judgment of Supreme Court, in such litigation is consolidated and uniform (SSTS núm. 1119/2003, of 20 November , No.. 366/2006, of 17 April , No.. 1201/2006, of 1 dediciembre of 2006 , 130/2010, of 23 March 2010 , inter).

In conclusion, purchase an asset that has not been delivered yet you, signing bills of exchange for future payment can be a threat to economy.

Consult your case by clicking here.

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