There have been a few rulings recently from the Supreme Court, seven after the summer break against in which Clubs, such as Anfi, Puerto Calma or Palm Oasis, have been condemned to return to their clients certain amounts they paid, declaring their contracts null and void.

Some of these rulings have to do with the time limit of the contracts, sold in principle, in perpetuity having been this considered illegal by the Highest Court in Spain. Other have to do with the so-called system of floating weeks, in which the company does not specify neither the apartment nor the exact week on which customers are entitled to use and enjoy. This model was marketed with the lure of flexibility, but in practice has caused problems in booking week. The Supreme understands that the real right of users was therefore "limited" in line with previous statements they consider that this type of contract does not meet the basic requirements because it does not define clearly the purpose or the consideration.

The novelty lately has been that the Supreme Court is concluding that vendors must pay an amount proportional to the time remaining in force in each contract, being the maximun legal duration of 50 years, so if you paid 20,000 euros in 2006, you will be entitled to a partial refund for the remaining 40 years (16,000€).

These resolutions also refers to another concept that usually appears in judgments against that have to do with Timeshare, the illegality of advances charged to customers during the period in which they have the right to cancel the contract in the first three months after his sign. The jurisprudence of the Supreme rules that are contrary to law even when collected through a third trust company, although there are disagreements about whether to return or not duplicated.