Messina v Doncaster Developments (NSW) Pty Ltd

The case of Messina v Doncaster Developments (NSW) Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Messina, and the defendant, Doncaster Developments (NSW) Pty Ltd, regarding a breach of contract in the sale of a unit. The contract for sale was executed on the basis of a plan attached to it, which showed the unit's entitlement as 1/110th of the strata plan. However, the strata plan was registered after the contract was signed, resulting in a different unit entitlement of 1/108th. The dispute centred on whether the contract allowed for rescission due to the discrepancy between the unit entitlements and whether a special condition in the contract, allowing the vendor to amend the strata plan, was void since the plan was registered before the contract was executed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the contract allowed for rescission due to the discrepancy in unit entitlements, and whether the special condition permitting the vendor to amend the strata plan was void as it was registered after the contract was signed. The court needed to determine whether the special condition was otiose and whether the contract terms allowed for rescission under these circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider the standard terms of the contract, which included a clause allowing rescission due to discrepancies in unit entitlements.

The court held that the special condition permitting the vendor to amend the strata plan was not otiose, as it was registered after the contract was executed. The court further held that the contract terms allowed for rescission due to the discrepancy in unit entitlements, as the contract included a clause that permitted rescission in such circumstances. The court found that the vendor was not entitled to amend the strata plan and that the discrepancy in unit entitlements constituted a breach of contract. Consequently, the contract was rescinded, and the parties were restored to their pre-contractual positions.

The final orders of the court were that the contract for sale between the plaintiff and the defendant was rescinded, and both parties were to bear their own costs of the proceedings. The court ordered that the registration of the strata plan would not affect the outcome of the case and that the special condition in the contract, permitting the vendor to amend the strata plan, was not otiose. The court also held that the vendor was not entitled to exercise the put or call option, and the contract was rescinded, leaving both parties to their pre-contractual positions.