Opinion ID: 1901284
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Illusory Promise

Text: ¶ 52. Additionally, the chancery court found Starkville's promise to buy what the Four County Board of Directors could not sell without on each occasion exercising their independent judgment as trustees for the membership was illusory. In 1966 the legislature added the requirement of the participation of the Public Service Commission in any sale of a public utility's certificate.... The City contends the chancellor erred in its finding, as it was bound by its promise to either purchase 4-County's service rights and distribution facilities or to grant 4-County a franchise. Similarly, it maintains 4-County could either sell its right and facilities or accept the franchise. ¶ 53. This Court has stated, [b]y the phrase `illusory promise' is meant words in promissory form that promise nothing; they do not purport to put any limitation on the freedom of the alleged promisor, but leave his future action subject to his own future will, just as it would have been had he said no words at all. Krebs ex rel. Krebs v. Strange, 419 So.2d 178, 182 (Miss. 1982) (quoting CORBIN ON CONTRACTS. § 145 at 211 (1952)). In Strange, the Court held that an insurer's promise not to offer to renew the insurance contract upon the termination of the present policy was illusory. Id. at 183. ¶ 54. The City's promise to either purchase 4-County's service rights and distribution facilities or grant 4-County a franchise is not illusory. In this conclusion, the court erred.