The floor clauses in mortgages shake the price of banks

If the idea is that the floor clauses are illegal, it could well be argued that one is not responsible for their actions and can break any contract at the time they deem it is harmful or the conditions make the situation unfavorable. With this, all legal certainty would cease to exist and, with it, business relationships as we know them.

Here are just three questions to clarify

Here are just three questions to clarify:

If the client was duly informed of what he was going to sign.
If not, the clause could be canceled. However, this should be applicable to any contract since full knowledge should legitimize or not its validity.
If it is an abusive clause.

Any abusive clause is not valid by definition

Any abusive clause is not valid by definition

We must be very clear that this is debatable and should not be susceptible to populism and arbitrariness. Currently, everything that smells like a bank is described as unfair and the law cannot act to the exclusive benefit of the population according to their interests at all times.

The law must follow an objective criterion that confers legal certainty so that companies and individuals know the rules that will be applied while being fully aware of the consequences of their acts and / or contracts.

Another thing would depress trade by creating insecurity that would drive away any possibility of reaching agreements that will not be respected.

If all or part must be returned


This is a somewhat thorny issue although I will try to express my opinion as clearly as possible.
I think the most important thing is to know if there is any law that determines a limitation in retroactivity in contracts.

If it does not exist, there should be a full refund of the amounts improperly collected. If it exists, we should adjust to what that law determines.

At least, that’s how I think.