Litigation
Actual Knowledge, Constructive Knowledge, Imputed Knowledge and To the Seller´s Knowledge in a Purchase Agreement
Actual Knowledge, Constructive Knowledge and Imputed Knowledge are long established legal concepts that are commonly used in SPAs (Sale and Purchase Agreements).
How to get rid of an “unwanted” shareholder?
Let’s face it. It happens a lot – not only in emotional relationships but more often in business relationships and even more often in companies. Coexistence can never be easy.
Liability of a Debtor (in Spanish Law)
The compensation for damages aims to leave the creditor in the same position as if the obligation of the contract had been properly fulfilled
The Termination of Bilateral Obligations (in Spanish Law)
Spanish Law protects the damaged creditor, as it gives the option to choose between the agreed performance in the contract or the termination of the agreement, with compensation for damages…
The Act of God and Force Majeure (in Spanish Law)
Outside the cases expressly mentioned in the law, no one shall be liable for events which cannot be foreseen or which, being foreseen, should be inevitable.
Fault and Deceit (Dolo and Culpa in Spanish Law)
Last updated: 28 July 2026. Quick answer. Spanish law distinguishes two grounds of contractual liability. Fault or negligence (culpa) is the omission of the diligence required by the nature of…
The Legal Action for Performance of Obligations (in Spanish Law)
Persons who, in the performance of their obligations, should incur in wilfull misconduct, negligence or default, and those who should breach the content of the obligations in any way shall…
Total Breach and Defective Performance (Misconduct in Spanish Law)
In Spain, the Civil Code states that misconduct occurs when there is any violation of the contract and this will result in compensation for the damages.
Differences between an Agency Agreement and a Distribution Agreement
The role of an agency contract and a distribution contract are fundamental in the sale of products, but not everyone knows the difference between them.
Should a fraudulent debtor be equally responsible to the negligent debtor?
Should a fraudulent debtor be equally responsible to the negligent debtor? What differentiates them? How do you establish causation to damages that to be compensated?
