The multinational company must have thought this was a good solution/idea since they had copied and started selling this design a couple of months later.This is when ZoMummade contacted us and asked if anything could be done. It wasn´t an easy situation for them since they aren´t a large company and they hadn´t patented their design.

The only thing that was to their advantage was that they were first to market the aprons. We agreed that the best solution was to try to reach a settlement because they were mostly interested in halting the production and the sales and not winning a trial. We sent a demand letter to their legal department in which we demanded that they should immediately halt sales and withdraw the products from the market.

Even though the market manager claimed the product was of their own design, their legal department decided to withdraw the product from the market and redesign their on-going big marketing campaign in which they were focusing on the school starting back. Once we had solved their problem, we advised them how they should protect their products in the future to avoid getting into similar situations.

His son was the vice president at the office so Ramón trusted him blindly. He invested in subordinated bonds. According to the information he received, the money was guaranteed and he could recall his investment at any time. But in reality, the fine print in the contract said he would not be able to get his money back before 2018. By this time Ramón would have turned 94 and it was very likely that he would need his savings before that time.

When Ramón came to our office, we first tried to reach a settlement with the bank but our attempts were fruitless. Therefore, we decided together with Ramón to sue the bank. The district court ruled against us because the judge agreed that no son would deceive his father knowingly. We appealed to the court of appeal who ruled in our favor, as well as the supreme court.

In accordance to the ruling, the son´s intentions is not relevant but the bank has an obligation to give correct and enough information to the customer before signing the contract. If this, as in Ramóns case, does not happen, there is an assumption that there isn´t any consent to be a part of the contract.

They had both been unemployed for some time and four adults and two children were living off one salary, a situation that would not be sustainable for long.
They had tried to find a solution together with the bank where they would pay a lower monthly fee, but the bank had turned them down and instead offered them a worthless product. The bank did this despite knowing that their monthly fee would decrease within two months and there wasn´t any need for another product.

The bank sold them an interest-derivative as if that would function as an insurance in case the interest went up. What the bank didn´t tell them was that the interest had already dropped and would continue to descend. Furthermore, they disregarded telling them that they would be in debt to the bank for the derivative when the interest dropped.

If they already had trouble making ends meet at the end of the month, the added cost of the derivative made it impossible. They could no longer manage their payment plan for the house. They tried to pay as much as possible but one day they got word that the bank had filed for seizing the two houses the couple had used as insurance for the loan.

We agreed with Laura and Juan that we should sue the bank. The district court ruled against them. The judge felt that even if the bank hadn´t fulfilled its obligations, and even if the product was harmful for the clients, no one had forced them to sign the contract. If they couldn´t understand the terms in the contract, they should have sought out advice before signing.

We appealed to the court of appeal who found in our favor. According to the verdict, and current practice according to the Supreme Court, the bank has all the information and is obligated to inform its clients so that they have full knowledge about what they are signing.