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.