Contractual possession terms must be enforced as written; purchasers could terminate for delayed fit-out possession and claim refund.

SC held that contractual terms governing delayed delivery of possession had to be enforced as written, including the distinct stages of fit-out possession and final possession, the grace period, and the agreed termination mechanism. Because possession for fit outs was not offered within the contractual deadline, the purchasers validly exercised their termination right within time and were entitled to refund on the contract's terms. The consumer forum could not rewrite the bargain by substituting its own view on sufficiency of delay or by compelling continued performance contrary to the termination clause. Refund and interest were therefore governed by the agreement, and the contrary consumer forum view was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the contractual terms governing delayed delivery of possession entitled the purchasers to terminate the agreement and claim refund, and whether the consumer forum could disregard those terms and substitute its own view.

Analysis: The agreement created two distinct stages of possession, namely possession for fit outs and final possession upon issuance of the occupation certificate, and it also stipulated a grace period and a specific termination mechanism if possession for fit outs was not offered within time. The respondent did not offer possession for fit outs by the contractual deadline, and the purchasers exercised the contractual right to terminate within the prescribed period. Once the parties had reduced their bargain to writing, the terms had to be enforced as written. The consumer forum could not rewrite the contract by treating the delay as insufficient to justify termination or by compelling continued performance contrary to the agreed termination clause. The refund obligation and interest rate were also governed by the agreement itself.

Conclusion: The purchasers were entitled to terminate the agreement and obtain refund in terms of the contract, and the contrary view of the consumer forum was unsustainable.

---