Sorry to interject. This is an unbiased view. Not citing anybody.
Bro grago, u have ur points with regards to a contract. Once signed, it's signed. For the first cut, we will always look Into a contract and see our rights. This serves as a guideline before one thinks of taking further legal action. However, bro aragon has his points too. A contract is not representative and conclusive, especially if a contract has not been "reasonably" entered into, and especially in the absence of an enactment. Lawyers always pick on such loop holes and create a counter claim and challenge their rights. And also, there was a point mentioned on the enforcement of breaches. In my eye, even if u sign a contract and u appoint a management, if the management has no such authority to "enforce" (in the absence of an act/authority), then it's up for challenge.
Nonetheless, observing the clauses in a signed contract serve as a guideline and if everyone follows it, we will have a harmonious serene peaceful living environment. In the real world, there are always rotten apples and these people, if savvy enough (and rich enough), could challenge the management via the law loopholes. The verdict on who's right and wrong, I'll pass to the judge. Just my opinion and I would also like to think that I don't see any "misrepresentation" here. It's just a matter of sharing of opinions. Cheers