Post by account_disabled on Mar 5, 2024 21:55:57 GMT -6
The nd Section of the Superior Court of Justice reversed the decision of the th Panel, which had identified contractual abuse in the so-called "interest on foot" of a compensatory nature, charged by the developer before handing over the keys to the property under construction. By a majority of six to three, it maintained the court's traditional jurisprudence, for the legality of the charge.
Strange arguments
The decision of the th Panel, contrary to the charge, as "there BTC Number Data would be no loan of capital by the construction company to the buyer, nor use of the property by the buyer, which would make the contractual provision unreasonable", reiterated the modern understanding, due to the abuse of the charge. Its reversal by the nd Panel implies a setback and is based on strange arguments.
In another argument without any legal meaning highlighted by the STJ Press Coordination, the rapporteur states that "while the buyer has the obligation to pay the adjusted price, the developer assumes all responsibility for the completion of the project: acquisition of the land, design of the project of construction, approval of documents with the competent bodies, registration with the registry office, construction of the work (or its supervision) and sale of the units, directly or through third parties".
Furthermore, the minister rapporteur confuses "tricks with bugs" when stating that the payment for the purchase of the property in production should be made in cash. If the developer offers an additional period of time for the buyer to pay, by paying the price in installments, it is a financial favor offered, and "in such a case, as a result of this convergence of interests, the developer will be anticipating the resources that are the responsibility of the acquirer, intended to ensure the regular progress of the project. In this situation, the charging of compensatory interest appears legitimate.
Strange arguments
The decision of the th Panel, contrary to the charge, as "there BTC Number Data would be no loan of capital by the construction company to the buyer, nor use of the property by the buyer, which would make the contractual provision unreasonable", reiterated the modern understanding, due to the abuse of the charge. Its reversal by the nd Panel implies a setback and is based on strange arguments.
In another argument without any legal meaning highlighted by the STJ Press Coordination, the rapporteur states that "while the buyer has the obligation to pay the adjusted price, the developer assumes all responsibility for the completion of the project: acquisition of the land, design of the project of construction, approval of documents with the competent bodies, registration with the registry office, construction of the work (or its supervision) and sale of the units, directly or through third parties".
Furthermore, the minister rapporteur confuses "tricks with bugs" when stating that the payment for the purchase of the property in production should be made in cash. If the developer offers an additional period of time for the buyer to pay, by paying the price in installments, it is a financial favor offered, and "in such a case, as a result of this convergence of interests, the developer will be anticipating the resources that are the responsibility of the acquirer, intended to ensure the regular progress of the project. In this situation, the charging of compensatory interest appears legitimate.