Greenwald v. Veurink
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan |
| Writing for the Court | R. B. BURNS |
| Citation | Greenwald v. Veurink, 195 N.W.2d 305, 37 Mich.App. 700 (Mich. App. 1972) |
| Decision Date | 19 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 10826,No. 3,3 |
| Parties | Richard J. GREENWALD, d/b/a Sun Agency, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gerrit W. VEURINK and John Bytwerk, Defendants-Appellees |
James J. Kobza, Kobza & Kobza, Muskegon, for plaintiff-appellant.
A. J. Rogoski, Bunker & Rogoski, Muskegon, for defendant-appellees.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and TARGONSKI, * JJ.
On December 2, 1966, defendant Veurink executed a standard form real estate listing agreement designating Sun Agency as exclusive broker for the sale of 'Lot 2, Blk 1, Continental Addition, City of Muskegon.' The broker was to earn a commission of 10 percent of the purchase price if it procured 'a Purchaser ready, willing, and able to purchase said property upon the terms and conditions set forth, or upon such other terms and conditions as the Owner shall accept in writing * * *.' The 'terms and conditions' were essentially 'cash to seller.' On the second carbon of the agreement Mr. Greenwald wrote the following notation in the margin: 'This listing can be cancelled at any time by Owner.'
The owners of Lots 3, 4, and 5, Blk 1, Continental Addition, City of Muskegon, also signed listing agreements designating Sun Agency as exclusive broker for the sale of said lots. Except for the purchase prices, these listing agreements were identical to the one executed by defendant Veurink.
On December 24, 1966, plaintiff presented defendant Veurink an unsigned form contract granting to the Shell Oil Company an option to purchase Lot 2. The proposed option was to remain in effect through April 21, 1967. It obligated Shell Oil Company to accept title to the land and pay the purchase price if, within 120 days of the exercise date, three conditions were satisfied: (1) the Seller's title was acceptable to the Buyer's attorneys; (2) the construction and operation of a gasoline service station was permitted by applicable laws and ordinances; and (3) the Buyer had been able to purchase Lots 3, 4, and 5 from their respective owners. Defendant Veurink refused to sign the option.
The Owners of the other lots signed options identical to the one tendered to defendant Veurink.
On January 12, 1967, defendant Veurink again refused to execute the option to Shell, told plaintiff he wanted the Mobil Oil Company to have the assembled parcel, and solicited plaintiff to sell several lots across the street from the Continental Addition as a condition to the sale of Lot 2.
Plaintiff initiated this action to recover a broker's commission allegedly owing him pursuant to the December 2, 1966 agreement. The judge denied the requested relief on two grounds: (1) a holder of an option is not a 'ready, willing, and able' purchaser; and (2) pursuant to the terms of the agreement, defendant Veurink had cancelled the listing agreement.
We concur with the trial judge.
An option is 'a preliminary contract for the privilege of purchase, not a contract of purchase.' Axe v. Tolbert, 179 Mich. 556, 562, 146 N.W. 418, 420 (1914). See also Comment, The...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Oshtemo Tp., Kalamazoo County v. City of Kalamazoo
...land. An option is a preliminary contract for the privilege of purchase and not itself a contract of purchase. Greenwald v. Veurink, 37 Mich.App. 700, 702, 195 N.W.2d 305 (1972). An option is basically an agreement by which the owner of the property agrees with another that he shall have a ......