According to the press, the judge decided to declare null and void the preference shares purchase agreement, understanding that there was a mistake in the consent given by the client, that is, she agreed to buy without really knowing the consequences of the sale and the risks of the transaction. This was even though there was, on the purchase agreement signed, a clause exonerating CAM bank for any responsibility.
The court understands that:
.- The Clause where the client agreed to the purchase of the preference shares is considered null and void, as that clause contained a wording imposed by the bank on the client, forcing her to declare that she was properly informed about the product and its consequences, and that all the necessary information was provided to her, when in fact, she was not informed properly. In addition the bank was responsible for drafting the documents using confusing terms and ambiguous expressions.
.- The judge also understands that the claimant did not act with the intention to speculate, and so she must be considered as a consumer, as she was just a pensioner who tried to get the maximum possible return for her savings.
.-The court understands that the verbal information provided by the bank was insufficient, and therefore the bank failed in its legal obligation to inform the client.
.- The court concludes that the lack of information caused an error in the client-consumer about the nature of the transaction and its consequences. That error must invalidate the consent given and therefore the preference shares purchase agreement signed.
If you find yourself in this or a similar situation, please let us assist you.
The information provided in this article is not intended to be legal advice, but merely conveys general information related to legal issues.
White & Baos
Tel: +34 966 426 185
White & Baos 2012 – All rights reserved