Beecher v. Morse

• Decision Date: 10 November 1938
• Docket Number: No. 34.,34.
• Citation: 282 N.W. 226,286 Mich. 513
• Parties: BEECHER v. MORSE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

286 Mich. 513

282 N.W. 226

BEECHER

v.MORSE.

No. 34.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Nov. 10, 1938.

Suit by Fred S. Beecher against Ida Morse for specific performance of an option agreement. Decree dismissing the bill, and complainant appeals.

Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Oakland County, in Chancery; H. Russel Holland, Judge.

Argued before the Entire Bench, except BUTZEL, J.

George A. Cram, of Pontiac (Monaghan, Crowley, Clark & Kellogg, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.

Slyfield, Hartman, Mercer & Reitz, of Detroit (William H. Wilmot, of Pontiac, of counsel), for appellee.

CHANDLER, Justice.

Prior to September, 1935, plaintiff was the owner of the premises involved in this dispute. Finding himself in need of money, he approached one A. G. Cameron, a real estate broker, for the purpose of effecting a sale of his property. On September 11, 1935, after consultation with Mr. Cameron, he executed what is termed an offer to sell the premises for the sum of $3,500, upon condition that he be given by the purchaser or purchasers thereof the exclusive option to repurchase the same upon payment of the sum of $4,100 on or before 12 o'clock noon of December 31, 1936.

By reason of Cameron's efforts, defendant was induced to purchase the property, a deed thereto being executed by plaintiff on September 13, 1935. Simultaneously therewith, defendant executed an option giving plaintiff the exclusive right to purchase the premises at any time prior to 12 o'clock noon, December 31, 1936. The option agreement contained this provision: ‘This option may be exercised by the purchaser only by accepting the same in writing within the time above stated and at the time of such acceptance paying the sum of $4,100 on account of the purchase price, in cash or by certified check and the undersigned agrees not to sell, mortgage or do any act to diminish or incumber the title to said land while this option remains in force.’

On December 30, 1936, plaintiff attempted to exercise his option by mailing to defendant a cashier's check drawn on The Detroit Bank in the sum of $4,100, and demanding a deed to the farm. On the following day, said cashier's check was returned to plaintiff by defendant accompanied by the statement that, ‘It is not proper tender in accordance with the terms of the option’. Thereafter, under date of January 11, 1937, the same check was again tendered by plaintiff's attorney and was again returned by defendant's attorney who stated that the check did not comply with the terms of the option which required tender of cash or a certified check. Thereupon, plaintiff filed his bill of complaint herein praying for specific performance of the option agreement. The trial court dismissed the bill.

It is well settled by the decisions that an option is a mere offer, and that acceptance thereof must be made within the time allowed or the optionee's rights thereunder will be lost. It is also apparent that substantial compliance with the terms of the option is not sufficient to constitute an acceptance of the offer.

‘Compliance with its terms is minutely required’. Olson v. Sash, 217 Mich. 604, 187 N.W. 346, 347.

‘An option is but an offer, strict compliance with the terms of which is required; acceptance must be in compliance with the terms proposed by the option both as to the exact thing offered and within the time specified; otherwise the right is lost’. Bailey v. Grover, 237 Mich. 548, 213 N.W. 137, 139.

See, also, Nu-Way Service Stations v. Oil Co., 283...