A contract of sale in WA contains a sunset clause of 90 days for development approval. The approval is granted on day 95, but the vendor wishes to proceed. What are the purchaser's rights?

Option A: Must proceed as approval was eventually granted

This is incorrect because the purchaser is not obligated to proceed simply because approval was eventually granted. The sunset clause creates a firm deadline, and exceeding this timeframe gives the purchaser rights, not obligations. Forcing the purchaser to proceed would undermine the protective purpose of sunset clauses and could expose them to market risks during the delay period.

Option C: Must pay additional costs due to the delay

This is wrong because the purchaser should not bear additional costs due to the vendor's failure to meet the sunset clause deadline. The delay was caused by the vendor's inability to obtain approval within the specified timeframe, making them responsible for any consequences. Requiring the purchaser to pay additional costs would be unfair and contrary to consumer protection principles.

Option D: Contract automatically extends for another 90 days

This is incorrect because sunset clauses do not automatically extend when deadlines are missed. Contract terms are binding as written, and automatic extensions would undermine the certainty that sunset clauses are designed to provide. Any extension would require mutual agreement between the parties, not an automatic legal mechanism.