In a complex transaction, the purchaser's lawyer discovers a restrictive covenant on the title that prevents the intended use of the property. The sale agreement contains a standard 'requisitions on title' condition with a 10-working-day deadline that expires tomorrow. What is the most appropriate course of action?

Option B: Wait until after settlement to address the covenant issue with the vendor

Waiting until after settlement is legally dangerous and impractical. Once settlement occurs, the purchaser generally accepts the title as is and loses most rights to object to pre-existing defects. The restrictive covenant would then become the new owner's problem without recourse against the vendor. This approach ignores the protective purpose of requisitions conditions and could result in the purchaser being stuck with an unusable property.

Option C: Accept the title as is since the covenant was discoverable through due diligence

While the covenant may have been discoverable through due diligence, this doesn't negate the purchaser's right to raise requisitions within the specified timeframe. The requisitions condition exists specifically to allow purchasers to object to title defects, regardless of whether they were discoverable. Accepting the title 'as is' without exercising available legal protections would be poor legal practice and against the purchaser's interests.

Option D: Cancel the contract immediately without serving any notices

Immediate cancellation without serving requisition notices is premature and potentially costly. Many title issues, including restrictive covenants, can be resolved through negotiation, covenant modifications, or other solutions. Cancelling immediately forfeits the opportunity to explore these options and may result in unnecessary loss of the property and associated costs. The requisitions process should be followed first to preserve all available options.