Timeshare in Spain

Started by seager64, October 01, 2015, 11:18:36

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

seager64

Hello,
What is happening in Spain to timeshare since the supreme court ruling on perpetuity? You still see timeshare for sale on eBay starting from 25p so if you bought one. Would the old contract still apply or would you have to start a new contract with the resort?
Seager64



















   
Seager64

seager64

Seager64

Happy Days are here again

An excellent question this one.
I have also seen these 25p timeshares on ebay had the same thoughts.
A few years ago I puchased via eBay 2 consecutive May/june weeks in Portugal for the princely sum of 2p.
It seemed a no brainer at the time as the maintenance fees had been paid for the year and in addition the seller who was desperate to get out of timeshare was paying the £650 transfer fee.
The 2 weeks were available for that year and therefore we only had to find the airfare to jet off for our 2 weeks in the sun for the 2p paid.
When the following year and the holiday was a distant memory I received that years £1000 maintenance bill and I started to wonder wether I had made a mistake.
I certainly didn't need any more timeshare as I already had other weeks.
When I received all the documentation from the seller he provided me his original contract when he bought the timeshare back in the eighty's on a 25 year lease.
I kept the timeshare for a few more years until the expiry of the lease and then armed with the original contract I contacted the resort in order to relinquish my commitment.
I was then told that a motion had been passed by the owners that the resort was now a in perpetuity resort and that the previous owners had signed to accept this.
Alls well that ends well as I was able to get rid by the same method as the previous owner.
So in effect my original purchase was not the 2p bargain I thought it was.
I am still a comitted timeshare owner but would want a lot of questions answering with regard to 'in perpetuity' before making another purchase.
If I did find myself tempted again by one of these penny bargains I think I would consider that due to the fact the initial cost was nothing I would be able to afford a solicitor to do the conveyancing and have proof of a get out clause in writing.





















   
[/quote]

Boss Man

Of course, the perpetuity clause has now been ruled to be unlawful.

charlie1

I would suggest that you put these questions to Javier the Spanish Lawyer he started up the threads below and invited anyone to ask questions on the recent Spanish Supreme Court rulings and he would answer to the best of his ability and what was current.

These were only fairly recent threads ask what you want on these I would suggest so we can keep this all in one place. The one below maybe best suited as it covered other areas beyond jurisdiction

Which JURISDICTION is applicable to my timeshare contract?  http://www.timesharetalk.co.uk/index.php/topic,19126.msg59530.html#msg59530


POINTS: Are they affected by the recent rulings of the Spanish Supreme Court? http://www.timesharetalk.co.uk/index.php/topic,19127.msg59527.html#msg59527
Timeshare Weekly is an Independent website working with those who share similar ideals. We are here to guide the consumer make the very best of timeshare. We encourage positive change and solutions. Your either living in the problem or your living in the solution. Contact graham@timeshareweekly.com

jcorrea-lawyer

Thank you Charlie1! Of course I will be pleased to help with any doubt you may have. What do you, Seager64 and Happy days, want to Know?
Bringing legal advice on Timeshare matters throughout Spain.
Lawyer nº 1071 of the Las Palmas Bar Association. Canary Islands.
http://www.correaguimera.com

seager64

Hello,
My question is if you purchased a timeshare in Spain or the Canary Islands from Ebay for 99p. Which originally was sold in perpetuity after 1999 what sort of contract would apply to it now. Since the Supreme Court ruling could you just give notice to the resort when you wanted to exit or have the  resorts got a new way of locking you in.
Seager64

Seager64

jcorrea-lawyer

Seager64 if you bought it from a private person Law 42/98 does not apply to that contract. It applies to professionals and private persons. In any case you do have a relationship with the Club/Resort because they admitted you as a member and issued the Certificate. Consequently you can tell them that that kind of membership is no valid because is in perpetuity and leave the Club.
Bringing legal advice on Timeshare matters throughout Spain.
Lawyer nº 1071 of the Las Palmas Bar Association. Canary Islands.
http://www.correaguimera.com

DavidCox

In the UK and when you buy a 'right to occupy' you acquire the benifits and burdens of the 'right' acquired. If you acquire a fixed week timeshare (which has been deamed unlawful) and therefore voidable, the newly acquired timeshare (right to occupy) has the benifit of an equitable claim. Would that claim and the ability to claim transfer to the new owner?

Is so these timeshare have significant value. It's only a thought.

jcorrea-lawyer

In Spain is the same but the contract between private parties doesn't have to follow the rules  (duties of information and the like) that the Law prescribes. Anyway what you acquire is what the private owner posses, his/her rights on the contract. If you decide to take legal action against the Club to cancel the membership and ask for compensation, your rights would be basically the same but I understand that you can only claim back what you paid as price to the private vendor.
Bringing legal advice on Timeshare matters throughout Spain.
Lawyer nº 1071 of the Las Palmas Bar Association. Canary Islands.
http://www.correaguimera.com

Boss Man


DavidCox

Therefore in C2C transactions we  agree a compensatory  blight may exist!

Exploring this issue further

Can the right to claim damages be assigned by the seller to the buyer and as part of the consideration paid in the C2C transaction ?

Can the perscriptive right to seek and recover damages  not be reserved to the buyer?

If an objective test concluded that the buyer and the seller knowing intended for the right to be transferd. Is it not aurguable that the rights are a sellable commodities? Its my thinking, the contracting parties have a lawful agreement, have reached an accord, and have complied with "considerations and objectives" . Is this not a actionable issue in Spain?


Clearly the resort is silent in the C2C transaction. Is champerty available in this issue?

Following the thread of the issue. Assume a group of wild catters crowd funded the adventure to recover damages, do you think the C2C status is compromised?

My view is (if a route is available) consumers will get more money in any forward sale of thier timeshare.

Boss Man

It's arguable, but may not receive much sympathy from the Courts, who only like to compensate people for their actual losses.

jcorrea-lawyer

I agree. This can be understood by a court as an attempt to unjust enrichment because in fact you have not paid the money that you are claiming...
Bringing legal advice on Timeshare matters throughout Spain.
Lawyer nº 1071 of the Las Palmas Bar Association. Canary Islands.
http://www.correaguimera.com

DavidCox

Again thanks for your views, pushing the issue forward I hope I am right in that you BOTH refer to "Simpson"

"The assignment in this case plainly savours of champerty, given that it involves the outright purchase by Mrs. Simpson of a claim which, if it is successful, would lead to her recovering damages in respect of an injury that she has not suffered... In my view this is a case of an assignment of a bare right of action, in the sense that it is an assignment of a claim in which the assignee has no legitimate interest, and is therefore void. For these reasons I would dismiss the appeal."

The decision severely curtails the possibility of creating a market for buying and selling claims.

We should still be aware that there are situations in which consumers may assign a cause of action if the assignee could be seen to have a "sufficient interest" in pursuing the claim.
Exploring (Simpson v Norfolk & Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 1149). It appears to me this principle is subject to exceptions:

"Has legitimate interest"

Such legitimate interest can be:

Exceptions by statute say liquidation/Insolvency.

An assignment of a "cause of action" as part of a transfer of property, for example a debt "transfer of a lease", forward of past rental payments.
Say assigns future property (Re Oasis Merchandising Services Ltd [1995] 2 BCLC 493 at page 498).

Examples

A consumer sold a voidable contract such attracts compensation if claimed; consumer had no money after acquiring the product. Seller must be unjustly enriched.

B consumer sold voidable contract such attracts compensation if claimed, consumers sell the equitable right (consumer compensated by sale) no right available to the acquirer of the right. The seller unjustly enriched.

C consumer sold a voidable contract such attracts compensation if claimed, consumer has money and claims satisfaction of the right to claim is fulfilled.

D consumer sold a voidable contract such attracts compensation if claimed, consumer sells right to claim. Acquirer claims (as is his right) satisfaction of the right to claim is fulfilled.
How could the court could conclude a issue exists or that a balance has not been struck?

Surly "Simpson" does not accord with the overriding objective expressed in this issue!

Powered by EzPortal