Timeshare Directive, Article 8

ECLI: ES:TS:2019:3130

It is true that in case of nullity of the timesharing contract, all the amounts paid will be returned to the purchaser. Notwithstanding this rule, interpretation of the law provisions must be made attending fundamentally to its "spirit and purpose". In the case of the aforementioned article 1.7, the aim of the rule is to not harm the contractor, who is surprised by the content of a contract (normally an adhesion contract) that does not comply with the legal requirements. But in this case it has not happened, so, as long as the plaintiffs have been able to enjoy for some years the accommodation that the contract offered them,  the reimbursement of amounts paid must not be total, but proportional to the time that  remains in force taking into account the maximum legal duration of fifty years.

The claimants signed several timesharing contracts with the defendant (Diamond Resorts Tenerife Sales, SL). Some years later, they ask Diamond for the nullity of the contracts. As regards the minimum content of the contract that the Law establishes in its art. 9, the duration and the object of the contract are not determined.

They ask for the nullity of the contract and for the restitution of the amount of money paid in advance.

What are the economic effects of the nullity of a timesharing contract when the purcharser has used it for some years?

“In case of nullity, the amount paid must be reimbursed by the defendant, which proportionally corresponds to the years not enjoyed, based on the attribution of a contractual duration of 50 years, with application of legal interests from the date of filing of the claim.”

URL: http://www.poderjudicial.es/search/AN/openDocument/8d812f7b8f146e98/20191018

Texto completo: Texto completo

No hay resultados disponibles

No hay resultados disponibles

The Supreme Court partially estimates the appeal and agrees the nullity of the timesahring contract, but modulating its economic consequences.