{"id":236,"date":"2010-09-05T10:00:29","date_gmt":"2010-09-05T09:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/?p=236"},"modified":"2014-05-05T19:06:22","modified_gmt":"2014-05-05T18:06:22","slug":"larsols-penalty-clause-upheld","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/larsols-penalty-clause-upheld\/","title":{"rendered":"Larsol&#8217;s Penalty Clause Upheld"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>It may not be worth mentioning, given it was a bit of a no-brainer, but <strong>Larsol&#8217;s obstinacy in\u00a0challenging the validity of a penalty clause<\/strong> has merited an otherwise underserved publication.<\/p>\n<p>The particular clause was a classic client-pitching enticement to lure fresh money into their accounts. It stipulated, on the Larsol-Estepona contracts, that if <strong>the development was not built, a 50% penalty refund<\/strong> (calculated on the deposit paid) was inmediately available to clients.<\/p>\n<p>Larsol fought back stating that the works had not been completed due to delays attributable to\u00a0&#8220;third parties&#8221;, even if these\u00a0were not identified nor proof put forward to substantiate the claim.\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>The judge stipulated that the clause was fully valid insofar as the works had not been finished on time, irrespective of whether those third parties were at fault.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Zurich<\/strong> <strong>had already repaid the capital previously<\/strong>, via enforcement of the developer&#8217;s\u00a0insurance policies, and this was further used as proof of Larsol&#8217;s contractual default.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>It may not be worth mentioning, given it was a bit of a no-brainer, but Larsol&#8217;s obstinacy in\u00a0challenging the validity of a penalty clause has merited an otherwise underserved publication. The particular clause was a classic client-pitching enticement to lure fresh money into their accounts. It stipulated, on the Larsol-Estepona contracts, that if the development [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[39,7,38,36],"class_list":["post-236","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-litigation","tag-developer-contracts","tag-larsol","tag-penalty-clause","tag-zurich-espana"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=236"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1355,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236\/revisions\/1355"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawbird.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}