So the retirees who live in Metropolis, a complex described as "one of Auckland's most exclusive apartment buildings", said they were right to cancel the deal and keep their unit 1707 and not settle the deal with the pilot.
But Armishaw won the case and got a decision saying the couple must transfer the title to him.
Justice Clive Taylor wrote in his decision just out that Armishaw is an international pilot living in Doha, Qatar but his mother Heather and his father own three Metropolis apartments. His sister owns one. All are leased to the hotel, Avani, which pays the family a fixed rate of return.
So Armishaw decided he would also buy a place as a "hands-off" investment. Last March, he struck a deal to pay $552,000 for the unit, paying a 10 per cent deposit of $55,250 to the couple's real estate agent, City Sales.
Not included in the sale were the car park in the basement or its associated storage unit. The couple sought a further $150,000 for these associated parts of the property, which were attached to the apartment title.
But Armishaw said he didn't want those and declined to buy them. He only wanted the apartment.
By last April, he got concerned about the settlement timeframe and asked for an update, partly on that side issue - the car park and storage unit and whether that was attached to the apartment title or separated from the apartment title because he wasn't buying those two extras.
The Huangs didn't want to sell that storage unit or car park and asked for it not to be included in the sale which meant the title to the property needed to be changed - a relatively straightforward matter, the judge noted, referring to Land Information NZ and its role on that.
By May, the Huang's solicitors advised there were "unexpected family issues" outside their control and they couldn't remove the car park and storage units from the title before settlement.
Last winter, in June and July, Armishaw's lawyers discussed the situation with the couple's solicitors but to no end.
No settlement was forthcoming.
By October, Mr Huang wrote a letter, translated from Mandarin. That summarised the couple's opposition to the court application.
It said they were misled by Lucia Gao of City Sales and "exploited due to their age and language difficulties". They said they only wanted to sell the apartment, not the car park or storage unit.
The apartment sale was conditional on the car park and storage unit being successfully transferred. As vendors, they were entitled to cancel the sale if the car park and storage area couldn't be separated from their apartment title, they said.
But Anthony Woodhouse representing Armishaw said none of the couple's defences were credible.
Kenneth Sun for the couple said the defence of misrepresentation was available. Gao had falsely represented to them that the agreement for the sale was drafted according to their instructions. It wasn't drafted the way they wanted it, Sun told the court.
The couple was induced to enter into an agreement via misrepresentation, Sun argued.
But the judge decided the couple's evidence "is not sufficiently credible for the defence to be made out". He ruled against them, in favour of the pilot.
It was possible for the car park and storage unit to be separated from the title and for only the apartment to be sold to the pilot, he ruled in the September 29 decision.
So the judge gave the couple 20 working days to transfer the property without the accessory units. The couple must also pay the pilot compensation and pay his court costs for bringing the case.
