Every real estate investment decision rests on a basic assumption: that the seller will fulfill their contractual obligations. This is a reasonable and even necessary assumption, because without it, no project would be sold off-plan, nor would any family hand over their savings in exchange for a future promise. The problem arises when this assumption is broken, not due to unforeseen circumstances, but by the deliberate decision of the person who was obligated to honor it.
There's a significant difference between a project that's behind schedule and a construction company acting in bad faith. Delays happen, and anyone familiar with the industry knows that permits, suppliers, or weather conditions can disrupt a timeline. That's part of the reasonable risk of investing off-plan. What falls outside that reasonable risk is when, upon delivery, the site isn't even cleared, the foundations are barely visible, and instead of an honest explanation, the client receives silence, evasive answers, or information that doesn't reflect the reality of the project.
A case I know well illustrates this point. It involves an investment made over two years ago with a delivery date that has already passed, where construction is progressing at a pace that bears no relation to the time elapsed. The contract included a buyer protection clause that stipulated a refund in case of non-compliance, and that clause exists precisely for these scenarios.
However, in practice, the construction company has preferred to propose successive addendums that end up extending the deadline without any proportional progress on the project. And when reimbursement is finally discussed, it is presented under its own conditions, such as payments spread over time, shifting a burden onto the client that should not be theirs to bear.
That's the point where non-compliance ceases to be a technical problem and becomes a strategy. Renegotiating deadlines isn't inherently an act of bad faith, but doing so repeatedly, without real progress and without transparency, is. Offering a refund on the terms of the defaulting party instead of the originally agreed-upon terms is also bad faith. Bad faith isn't always manifested as an obvious lie. Often, it's built through delays, silence, and fine print that ultimately benefits the party who has already broken their word.
This has consequences that extend beyond the individual case. Every such situation that comes to light erodes trust in a sector that relies heavily on the credibility of its representatives. Buyers share experiences, references circulate, and a construction company acting in bad faith ultimately affects those that do comply, because it fuels widespread distrust of the off-plan sales model.
This isn't about generalizing or assuming that every instance of non-compliance hides a dishonest intention. It's about recognizing that there is a line, often blurred but real, between justifiable delays and persistent bad faith. Identifying it, naming it, and demanding that it be corrected is ultimately a way to protect the health of the sector itself.
Recommended readings:
