MRI CEO comments on justice as Bulgarian Court forces buyers to complete on their overseas property
A Sofia Court two days ago announced its decision in another case of Buyer versus Developer, interestingly this time ruling in favour of the developer, MacAnthony Realty Construction (more commonly known as MRI).
Spread the Word
July 16, 2010 - PRLog -- MRI are developers of the Aspen projects in Razlog Valley, close to Bansko. The buyer in question had tried to claim that he was not obligated to complete the property purchase because of one particular clause in the contract relating to the construction funding of the project. In fact, the buyer claimed that he was entitled to be refunded all sums previously paid. The court considered the evidence provided and dismissed the buyers claim for a refund under the preliminary agreement on the grounds that clause 4.2 was breached. The legal conclusion drawn was that MacAnthony Realty Construction did fulfill its obligations under the contract and that the buyer was now obliged to fulfill theirs. The court also ordered that in addition to the buyers completing their purchase, they shall also pay all fees and associated costs for MRI.
The case, the first of many identical cases being brought against the same developer is likely to be viewed in wider circles as a landmark case and the judgment passed down should be of great concern to the others claiming against the developer based on the same technicality who are waiting for their cases to be heard.
Dominic Pickering, CEO of MRI, commented, “It seems that justice has been done in Bulgaria. For the past few years we have had to put up with various so-called support groups offering buyers bogus legal advice. Even some less-than-reputable lawyers got in on the act. We never really viewed it as a long-term problem, just a short-term irritation. The sad thing is that many buyers were foolish and were taken in by these scam groups who convinced buyers not to complete on their purchase, and instead, try and get a refund. A court was never going to rule in their favour. A few lawyers made handsome fees, and a few support groups made a killing, but now it is the buyers who are left with the problem. The court has ruled that they have to complete their purchase, and they have to pay considerable court costs. That has now set the precedent, and these type of rulings will become part of the furniture. I would not be surprised to see some clients turning their attention to taking legal steps against the action groups and lawyers who convinced them to pursue such a foolish action.”