Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University v. Burgess
Michigan Court of Appeals
206 N.W.2d 256 (1973)
- Written by Joseph Bowman, JD
Facts
The Board of Control of Eastern Michigan University (the Board) (plaintiff) and Burgess (defendant) were involved in negotiations to sell Burgess’ home to the Board. The parties considered a contract granting the Board a 60-day option to purchase the home. Burgess then signed a document providing for this option agreement, which acknowledged receipt of one dollar and other valuable consideration. However, no consideration was provided. The Board later notified Burgess that it intended to exercise this option, but Burgess refused to sell the home. The Board then sued Burgess, requesting that the trial court grant specific performance. At trial, Burgess claimed that the lack of consideration rendered the option contract unenforceable, and that he had revoked the offer prior to acceptance. The trial court, however, entered judgment for the plaintiff, ruling that because Burgess had acknowledged receipt of consideration in signing the option agreement, he could not later allege a lack of consideration to void the contract. Burgess appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burns, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.