Morgan v RHS Hotel Investments Pty Ltd t/as (rec and man app) as trustee for the Rushcutters Unit Trust

In Morgan v RHS Hotel Investments Pty Ltd, the dispute arose from the sale of an off-the-plan unit in a development. The purchaser, Morgan, entered into a contract to purchase a unit, selecting a particular style scheme for the unit. Upon completion of the construction, the unit was built with a different style scheme. The purchaser terminated the contract upon the vendor's refusal to change the style scheme. The vendor then sought to enforce the contract, arguing that the purchaser had repudiated the agreement.

The court was required to determine whether the contract permitted the vendor to change the style scheme, and if so, whether the vendor had effectively renounced the contract by refusing to make the change. Additionally, the court had to consider whether specific performance was an appropriate remedy in this context, and whether the purchaser's deposit should be returned under section 55(2A) of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW).

The court found that the contract did not permit the vendor to change the style scheme once it had been selected by the purchaser. The refusal to change the style scheme constituted a renunciation of the contract by the vendor. Consequently, the purchaser was entitled to terminate the contract. The court determined that specific performance was not an appropriate remedy, as the contract was no longer capable of performance in its original terms. The deposit was ordered to be returned to the purchaser in accordance with the Conveyancing Act.

The court ordered that the contract be terminated, and the purchaser's deposit be returned to them. No specific performance was ordered, and the matter concluded with the deposit being returned in accordance with the Conveyancing Act.