The most representative case is that of floor clauses, blending the demonization of the product with the Supreme Court’s ruling that only challenges its marketing in certain specific cases. Floor clauses are a traditional, international, and established condition of mortgage loans.
With guarantees of transparency and clarity, as stated in the order of May 5, 1994, ensured by the intervention of a notary. I quote verbatim: “The notary must expressly warn the borrower that limits have been established on the variation of interest rates, particularly when the limitations are not similar for both upward and downward movements; the notary shall expressly record this circumstance in the deed, warning both parties of it.”
It is also sufficient to say that the client and, naturally, the notary have the deed for a few days (a minimum of three business days) before its signing. It is true that not all banks used this clause and not all mortgage contracts from the same bank included it. The final decision to include it or not depended on the client. However, we can state two things: 1. In most cases, it served to make a financing request viable in terms of risk; 2. In other cases, it served to lower the interest rate, precisely considering this reduced risk.
