The Court held that the purchaser validly rescinded a put and call option deed under cl 5.3(b) where soil classifications registered in the s 88B instrument (variously P, M and H1) replaced unknown classifications (shown as '??') in the draft instrument annexed to the disclosure statement, finding on an objective test that the purchaser would not have entered the deed and would be materially prejudiced. However, the Court held that the deed was not an 'off the plan contract' under Division 10 of the Conveyancing Act because the contract for sale only arises on exercise of the put option, and that the vendor's service of a Notice of Change in the approved statutory form did not create an estoppel precluding it from denying a Material Change. The vendor's claim for misleading and deceptive conduct based on CDS Plans failed because the plans were provided by an intermediary referral agent (Mr Broadstock) whose conduct was not attributable to the vendor, and in any event the plans disclosed earthworks across the whole site.
The full text is available to signed-in members.