In real estate, some practices become customary simply because they are repeated. However, what is customary is not always legally correct. Distinguishing between an accepted business practice and a legally valid action is essential to prevent conflicts, protect assets, and preserve trust in contractual relationships
There's a phrase we often hear in business: "That's how it's always been done." It seems like a harmless explanation, but when it's used to justify decisions that compromise rights or obligations, it deserves deeper reflection.
In the real estate market there are procedures that, due to their repetition, end up being accepted without question: agreements without sufficient documentation, commitments whose conditions are not specified and decisions made exclusively on the basis of previous experiences.
There isn't always malicious intent. Sometimes trust, ignorance, or habit play a role. But we must remember something fundamental: just because a practice is common doesn't mean it's legally correct or free of consequences.
Custom does not replace the law
The law recognizes the relevance of certain customs and practices in specific circumstances. This does not mean that any common practice can supersede mandatory legal provisions.
In our legal system, the principle of freedom of contract allows for agreements to be made within the limits of the law. Article 1134 of the Dominican Civil Code recognizes the binding force of legally formed agreements and requires their execution in good faith.
When parties enter into a contract, they not only express their intention to negotiate: they assume legally enforceable commitments. No commercial custom should serve as an excuse to disregard validly entered into obligations.
Even small oversights have consequences
In my professional practice, I've learned that many real estate disputes don't begin with major irregularities. Sometimes they arise from seemingly insignificant decisions: a condition that wasn't explained, a verbal modification that was never documented, a delivery date interpreted differently, or an obligation whose fulfillment was postponed.
While there is harmony, these situations seem manageable. But when disagreement arises, a lack of clarity can turn a simple negotiation into a complex controversy.
The problem isn't always a lack of trust, but rather having placed responsibilities on it that required legal clarity. Trust is essential for doing business, but it shouldn't replace contractual documentation.
Good faith should not be just a clause
Many contracts refer to the duty to act in good faith. What does this really mean in practice? It means honestly fulfilling commitments, maintaining consistent conduct, and avoiding actions that unfairly frustrate the other party's legitimate expectations.
Good faith should not be limited to a written expression. It must be evident from the negotiation stage through to the execution of the agreement. In real estate matters, where savings, family plans, and long-term asset decisions are involved, this conduct takes on particular importance.
An agreement can be commercially attractive and yet still require a careful review of its risks, obligations, and compliance mechanisms.
The true value of doing things right
Legal prevention is sometimes seen as a bureaucratic hurdle that slows down business. However, verifying documents, clarifying obligations, and reviewing clauses before signing usually requires less time and resources than dealing with a dispute later.
Prevention doesn't eliminate all risks. It allows us to identify, assess, and make informed decisions. It also reminds us that the consequences of a transaction can extend far beyond the moment of signing.
Doing things correctly should not be considered an additional burden, but a natural part of any responsible business relationship.
A reflection that goes beyond contracts
Clarity also protects human relationships. When each party understands what they are offering, what they are receiving, and what they must fulfill, misunderstandings decrease and the possibility of resolving differences through dialogue before resorting to legal action increases.
One of the biggest challenges in any economic activity is recognizing when a common practice needs to be reviewed. Not because there has always been malicious intent, but because realities change, businesses evolve, and legal requirements change as well.
Experience is valuable, but it should never prevent us from questioning our procedures. Before saying “we’ve always done it this way,” we should ask ourselves if there is a clearer, more prudent, and legally sound way to proceed.
Remember this…in real estate, as in life, not everything that is customary is necessarily correct.
And perhaps one of the most important decisions to protect our heritage is to learn to distinguish between what we have always done and what we truly should do.
Recommended readings:
