After signing County's contract that lacked CA disclosures and entering into escrow I discovered that the title is encumbered with several liens including a long term lease, which among other things was not disclosed. Under “Representations and Warranties” it says (sic)...“Seller has not entered into and will not enter into any lease agreement or contract, or executed any grant or transfer, with respect to the use or ownership of the Property.” – The closing was delayed during County’ efforts to clean the title but than due to no fault of my own I had to leave the country do to a family catastrophe, during which, the County now alleges, they send me a rescission notice which I should but did not receive. When I returned, I've sent the "full and final payment" but County now doesn't wantto sell. The NOTICE section of the contract reads (sic)... “All notices shall be deemed given or delivered: (a) if sent by mail, when received by the party to be notified; or (b) if delivered by hand, courier service or Express Mail, when delivered.” I 'never" receive such notice. Thus, I contend rescission did not take place (in my absence) and my "Full and Final" payment, which month ago I made via cashers check, should be accepted. Am I correct? The Board just met and decide they now County wants to use the property and do not wan to sell the property to me, despite original Resolution which did not specify time to complete transfer. The County counsel says that Resolution doesn't matter as the (faulty) contract became only thing important after it was signed. - But is the contract that state things inconsisten with the truth and lacks legal disclosures "unconscionable" and would argument that it is be helpful?