Interesting case- Sale of a rear block as part of a subdivision in Perth. The O+A is due to settle subject to the issue of titles and the deposit is paid and finance approval given. However due to the Vendor and the Surveyor not being able to communicate properly, the block was marketed as 280sqm, but now as part of getting titles issued has shrank to 273sqm as the mighty Crown has taken a cut of land unexpectantly. The buyer will have use of the lost land but it effects set-backs etc. The rear laneway access has eaten up a strip to widen the lane, but previous sub-divisions on both nieghbouring properties have not had the same loss (so the lane can never be widened!!!!). Legally are both parties bond to the contract even though the size has changed? I would appreciate a few comments on what people think should occur morally too. Should the price drop? by how much? Should/can the vendor be forced to move the new internal fences and cut down trees to give the correct amount of land? Most importanty - Who sould we blame . The purchaser for not protecting himself with clauses, The Agent just because, The Surveyor for managing to gift the Cown land in the middle of a laneway where no-one else has, and not mentioning it until Settlement is due, or the vendor for not overseeing the whole process effectively (or for hiring numnuts) I lean towards blaming the Vendor. All thoughts welcome. What a mess.