THE SUPREME COURT’S APPROACH IS AGAINST FAIRNESS:
\nThe Supreme Court’s approach to this issue is also contrary to fairness. That is to say;
\nas described above, a very large part of construction contracts in exchange for floors, land
\ndebt to transfer the deed to be fulfilled after the construction is completed
\nare organized. For this reason, the right of legislators, contractors and artisans is legal
\nhe tried to secure it with a mortgage. While the common practice is this way, the landowner,
\nseparated from the application, before the start of construction, transferring the deed to the contractor, both
\nmalik, as well as the owner of the right to save. Most likely, this, more apartments
\nhe accepted it for the purpose of buying it, for high profits, he took the risk. Also third party, 0
\n“I have the deed anyway\u201d” that is, with the belief that the risk is very small,
\nhe didn’t ask the contractor for any other guarantees. Indeed, if the contractor
\nif he wasn’t able to give it up, the third party might stop buying the apartment, maybe
\nhe was going to ask the contractor for a guarantee. In this case, his strong legal situation with his own hand
\nthe contractor who delivers to the contractor, only the contractor who must have a personal right, and the right in kind against the owner of the transferred land, with the convenience and confidence of receiving the deed from the contractor it will also be appropriate to protect a third party who does not want to guarantee this trust.
\nHowever, the Supreme Court, leaving aside the concept of rights in kind completely, has the assurance in its hands
\nabsolute protection of the owner of the land transferred to the contractor, third parties, only the land
\nhe is victimized on the grounds that the owner must know his right to return. Moreover, this
\na very large part of third parties, the small accumulation that they get by working for a lifetime, their head
\nhe spent it in the hope of getting an apartment he could put in. And the remaining share of the land
\ntaking it will ruin your entire life. In this aspect, the solution is fair, against the land owner, who transferred the opportunity in his hands to the contractor, the third person who received an apartment from him it’s protection.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
THE SUPREME COURT’S APPROACH IS AGAINST FAIRNESS: The Supreme Court’s approach to this issue is also contrary to fairness. That is to say; as described above, a very large part of construction contracts in exchange for floors, land debt to transfer the deed to be…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[217,223,220,218],"yoast_head":"\n