THE APPROACH OF THE COURT of CASSATION IS CONTRARY TO EQUITY:
\nThe approach of the Supreme Court on this issue is also contrary to fairness. That is to say;
\nas explained above, a very large part of the construction contracts for decking is the land
\nthe obligation to transfer the title deed will be fulfilled after the completion of the construction
\nit is organized. For this reason, legislators, contractors and craftsmen have the right to legally
\nhe tried to secure it with a mortgage. The common practice is that when this is the case, dec plot owner,
\nseparated from the application, before the start of construction, by transferring the deed to the contractor, both
\nthe owner has made himself the owner of the right to save. Most likely, you will also find that, more apartments
\nhe accepted it in order to get it, for a high profit, he took the risk. Moreover, in the third person, 0
\nwith the idea that “I have the title deed anyway”, that is, with the opinion that the risk is very small,
\nhe did not ask the contractor for any other warranty. Indeed, if the contractor issues the deed
\nif he was not in a position to give, the third party, perhaps, would refuse to take the apartment, perhaps
\nhe was going to ask the contractor for a guarantee. In this case, the legal status of the strong with his own hands
\nthe contractor who delivers it to the contractor, who should only have a personal right, also has the same right
\nshopping with the convenience and confidence of receiving the deed from the contractor, against the owner of the decommissioned land plot
\nit will also be fair to protect the third party who is doing this and does not want a guarantee with this confidence.
\nHowever, the Supreme Court has completely set aside the concept of the right in kind, leaving the assurance in its hands
\nthe contractor is obliged to protect the owner of the decommissioned plot in absolute terms, third parties, only the decommissioned plot
\nhe is victimizing the owner on the grounds that they should know his right to return. Moreover, this
\na very large part of third parties use their small savings obtained by working for a lifetime to get their head around
\nhe has already spent it in the hope of getting an apartment that he can put up. The remaining share of the land in his hands is also decoupled
\ntaking it will ruin your whole life. In this aspect, the solution is suitable for fairness,
\nthe third person who buys an apartment from the landowner who has decommissioned the facility to the contractor
\nit is to protect.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
THE APPROACH OF THE COURT of CASSATION IS CONTRARY TO EQUITY: The approach of the Supreme Court on this issue is also contrary to fairness. That is to say; as explained above, a very large part of the construction contracts for decking is the land…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[211],"tags":[217,223,228,220,218,1165],"yoast_head":"\n