Reply To: Buyers win against Santa Maria Green Hills

#89346
Anonymous
Participant

@Just Frank wrote:

Claire
The factor regarding the golf course may be part of a precedence is clearly a legal issue as it formed no part of the purchase contract

Some people DID have the Golf course in their contract. Charlie did for one. We, on the other hand were told upfront it was not going to be built. Many GH purchasers were unaware of this. Depends what month you bought.
I have no problems Frank. Mark started this thread but as you well know I posted this info on the GH development forum days earlier. You undermined my info as you always do and posted to that effect. As I told you there. ANY PRECEDENCE THAT MAY BE SET WILL BE FOR GH CASES ONLY. NOT for every illegal development.
I am not going into the whys and wherefores here, but it was explained to us by our lawyer at a meeting we had in London. At that time no “precedence” had been set.
The information I posted was directly from the lawyer concerned who emailed “his family”, of which I am one.
Please don’t keep saying I have a problem with GH…I DON’T. I just want to see the people that do, get treated fairly and justly. That is my interest and will remain so until justice is seen to be done.
Your lawyer is supposed to know it all,(according to you) let her find the info for you.
After your historical rudeness to me..No I would not tell you anything.