The first point of appeal was the incorrect application of Article 648 of the Commercial Code and Article 1 of the Special Transitional Law suspending embargoes on loans granted to the coffee production sector, since there is a causal link between the securities documents on which the claim is based and a commercial loan agreement accompanied by a mortgage guarantee. under the. The appellant`s rejection consisted in the fact that, in the final judgment, the judge had made an erroneous assessment of the evidence and therefore an erroneous determination of the facts considered to be proved, since for the judicial officer the bills of exchange, the photocopies of which are duly marked with their originals, are added to the proceedings, they have become documents. What is the legal basis for change in El Salvador? The impetrant in his appeal essentially bases the appeal on the following: that Aquo J. overestimated the robustness test contained in the CD provided by the defendant and refused to terminate the contract even though both parties requested it in legal form; of the foregoing constitutes a complete and concrete violation of Article 218. In summary, it appeared that the appellant made the following complaints: (a) the appropriate procedural remedy for recourse to the debt was a procedure for the joint determination of the existence of an obligation and not an enforceable procedure, since the invoices submitted stem from a causal link consisting of a lease; and (b) The existence of an erroneous assessment of the evidence, since. The applicant submits that a fine was imposed on the applicant undertaking for the infringement provided for in Article 44(e) as regards Article 18(b) of the Law on consumer protection, since the consumer signed a promissory note in which only the value of that note was recorded and that commitment document was noted in the contract when indicating the agreement with the undertaking. Applicant. The complainant essentially stated that the bill of exchange under discussion met all the requirements of Article 702 of the Commercial Code. whereas the decision contradicts itself when it mentions that the day, month and year in which the bill of exchange is signed have not been registered, and then mentions that two dates are indicated; It is also mentioned that the expiration date, yes. The first staff member in dispute stated that, after the defamation, the domicile of the defendant would determine jurisdiction in the territory, since none of the bills of exchange submitted had indicated the debtor`s place of payment or an address next to his name, and took into account the fact that, as indicated in the application, the taxpayer was the taxable person of the claim.

The civil judge of Santa Tecla decided to declare himself incompetent, stating that in the bills of exchange presented as the basis of the claim, no place of payment was provided, so that the defendant`s domicile must be used to transfer jurisdiction to a particular judge. The first judge for small quantities of San Salvador, in turn, refused to know the executive process, at the discretion of the appellant in the executive procedure, the judge a quo violated the law by declaring the action indisputable because he considered that the bills submitted did not meet the requirements prescribed by law, but expresses: that the documents presented comply with the requirements of Article 702 of the Commercial Code and that this declaration is due to the fact that the judge has quo, hello authorized, a question, in a bill of exchange, in which the signature of the debtor is not in the literal part that says the acceptor, loses its validity? or is it still valid?? 2. The outright mandate to pay a certain amount in national currency or in foreign currency admitted to trading: this amount must be expressed in numbers and letters (if there is a contradiction between the amount indicated in number and the amount indicated in letter, the amount indicated in letter prevails; on the contrary, in the case of letters, the amount of which is written several times for different amounts, either in letters or in numbers, the one with the lowest amount will prevail). If it is paid in foreign currency, it is necessary to indicate on the day of payment the equivalent between the currencies (exchange rate taken into account at the end of the letter). In practice, the standard format for a change is as follows: means of contestation. Subject matter of the complaint. The applicant`s complaints and claims are limited to the annulment of the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction, since the civil action was brought against him under the lease agreement concluded between the parties, but the action for enforcement was brought by means of the ancillary bills of exchange, the causal link of which is due to the above-mentioned contract. On the other hand, the appellant challenges the judgment of the Executive commercial trial, which was delivered against him, a judgment by which the plaintiff`s claims were upheld in their entirety.

The applicant seeks the annulment of the judgment on the basis of the following complaints: because it was the applicant who included his data in the basic documents of the. The grievance which, in the opinion of the appellant-defendant, gave rise to the impugned judgment consists in the fact that the basic document of the claim is not enforceable because it is an undisputed promissory note, and recalls that, in our legal system, there is no possibility that the clause exempting it from this obligation can actually be included in this security value, since the appellant is aware of the application of the interest rate variability clause in the The action should have been dismissed. The appellant`s representative based his rejection of the judgment under appeal on the misinterpretation of Article 464(4) of the Cour d`appel. Article 3 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, taking the view that the fourteen bills of exchange presented as basic documents for the claim contained in the application had been issued following the signing of a lease agreement between the applicant, and basing its complaints on the fact that the judgment provided that, on the basis of the verbatimity of the promissory note on the basis of the claim, the scope of the claim of the right invoked; Second, the ad quem court stressed that the lack of agreement between the parties on the collection of default interest cannot be presumed or replaced “without this being expressly done”. Appeal in cassation against the judgment overturning the acquittal and conviction of the accused, the applicant pleads in favour of an erroneous assessment of the evidence, since the Chamber has never expressed where fraud in the defendant`s actions was evident; Similarly, the Chamber reiterates that what the suspect said about the fact that the security was of value has not been proved in an appropriate legal manner. With regard to the request for clarification, it was limited to two essential points: 1. Clarify whether the omission of the monetary definition in the bills of exchange should be replaced by the Monetary Integration Act and that it should be understood as the obligation contained in the above-mentioned title in dollars of. In the present case, the aquo judge argued that the claim was impossible, since in the bills of exchange the signature, which appears as a drawer, is not known whether it corresponds to the beneficiary or the depositary of that guarantee, so that it has been omitted to show that the material or essential budget that leads to the claim cannot be valued.