Title: Foy v. Foy

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

484 So. 2d 439 (1986)
Ruth N. FOY
v.
R.E. FOY, Jr., and Jane Loring Foy.
84-890.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 7, 1986.
*440 C.R. Lewis of Lewis & Brackin, Dothan, for appellant.
H. Dwight McInish and William C. Carn, III of Lee & McInish, Dothan, for appellee R.E. Foy, Jr.
Warren Rowe of Rowe, Rowe & Sawyer, Enterprise, for appellee Jane Loring Foy.
BEATTY, Justice.
This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment for defendants in plaintiff's suit to compel specific performance of an option contract to convey land. We affirm.
This case has been before this Court once before. On the first appeal, this Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The facts recited in this Court's opinion on the first appeal, Foy v. Foy, 447 So. 2d 158, 160-61 (Ala.1984), are, for convenience, reported here:
Upon remand, the trial court granted a new trial. Thereafter, defendant R.E. Foy, Jr., moved to add a defense based upon the Statute of Frauds. The parties then submitted a "Stipulation for Submission of Cause for Final Decree," which included:
This stipulation was amended by adding:
In due course, the trial court entered a final judgment, in pertinent part as follows:
"ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED BY THE COURT AS FOLLOWS:
Plaintiff raises a number of issues which we will consider seriatim.
Whether the option agreement in question is void under the Statute of Frauds.
The applicable provision of the Statute of Frauds, found at Code of 1975, § 8-9-2, follows:
We agree with the trial court's finding that the option contract here, which falls within the Statute, see Griese-Taylor Corp. v. First National Bank of Birmingham, 572 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir.1978), contained no statement in writing expressing the consideration for the option itself. The option recites:
Clearly, this option contract contains no statement of any consideration for the option itself. The monetary figure expressed, $18,637.50, refers not to the option contract but to the consideration to be paid in the future for the deed of the land to be purchased. That transaction has nothing *443 to do with the unilateral option contract. For the distinction, see McGuire v. Andre, 259 Ala. 109, 65 So. 2d 185 (1953). As stated generally in 77 Am.Jur.2d Vendor and Purchaser § 34 (1975) at 214:
See also Rains v. Patton, 191 Ala. 349, 67 So. 600 (1914) ("If the consideration be not expressed in the writing, the agreement does not bind"). The trial court's conclusion, therefore, was correct under the authorities.
Whether the option was supported by a valid consideration.
Plaintiff contends that the option agreement itself was supported by a valid consideration, and was timely exercised. In answer to the same argument in a case involving substantially the same facts, Rains v. Patton, 191 Ala. 349 at 350, 67 So. 600 at 600 (1914):
See also Jones v. Pettus, 252 Ala. 12, 39 So. 2d 12 (1949). Under the Statute and the authorities, therefore, any supposed consideration supporting the option would not have made it an enforceable one.
Whether the option constituted an offer which was accepted by plaintiff before revocation.
This novel argument would have the Court declare that the option agreement, although clearly unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds, nevertheless possessed legal vitality as a continuing offer. We need not reach this questionable position, because it is equally clear that the evidence before the trial court authorized its finding of no acceptance under the terms of the option. The option contains the words "tender, or cause to be tendered ... the sum of $18,637.50." Acceptance of an option contract "must be identical with the offer." Moss v. Cogle, 267 Ala. 208, 101 So. 2d 314 (1958). No such compliance was made here; the evidence establishes quite the contrary, that the "offer," if it was an offer, was revoked before any purported compliance. Not only did the exchange of correspondence referred to in the stipulations demonstrate this, but the circumstances of other sales of some of the land also tend to establish a revocation.
It follows that the trial court was not in error for denying specific relief to plaintiff. See Dendy v. Anchor Construction Co., 294 Ala. 120, 313 So. 2d 164 (1975).
Let the judgment be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and ADAMS, JJ., concur.