Bridging cost

It took 2 years to process an INVESTOR’s application for a mortgage because: (A) ANOTHER APPLICATION FOR ANOTHER TRANSACTION FOR THE SAME PROPERTY WAS WRONGLY REDACTED by a notary REGARDING THE SIZE OF ANOTHER PERSON’S SHARES IN THE SAME PROPERTY (the investor did not participate in the transaction) (B) As a result of an error ad (A) the investor’s application was considered by the court to be in conflict with that OTHER APPLICATION (C) the court withheld the investor’s application.

The investor agreed to pay the creditor INCREASED INTEREST. Questions: (1) whether te interest is detrimental to the investor (2) or is the responsibility of the notary who inerronely formulated that conflict-of-law conclusion. The courts of both instances took the place that: (I) “The assumption by the trader that within a certain period of time he will obtain a land register entry relating to a mortgage and the construction of a legal act which entails additional financial burdens, if he does not achieve so, remains OUTSIDE an ADEQUATE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP with an action which has contributed to the fact that no such alert has been obtained at any given time”; (II) ‘It is not a normal consequence of an entry in a land register – to regard another trader’s application as a conflict-of-law application’; (III) in the comment below.

Case in SN. A more complete description of the case attached.