Court Opinion

ID: 9592910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:17:56.394354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:00.086390
License: Public Domain

Mackenzie, P.J.
(dissenting). I dissent because the trial court erred in characterizing the instant agreement as an option contract.
As the majority notes, pursuant to MCL 559.121(1); MSA 26.50(121)(1), condominiums may only be offered for initial sale in accordance with the Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq.; MSA *61026.50(101) et seq. The Condominium Act specifies two methods by which developers and prospective purchasers may reserve for sale a condominium unit: a preliminary reservation agreement, and a purchase agreement. See MCL 559.183; MSA 28.50(183) and MCL 559.184; MSA 26.50(184). The option contract found by the trial court in this case simply was not sanctioned by the Legislature in the highly regulated area of condominium development and sales.
The majority concludes that because the parties’ agreement did not comport with the statute of frauds it was void as a purchase agreement. The majority then notes that option contracts are outside the statute of frauds and finds that the parties’ agreement was valid as an option contract. I agree that the purchase agreement was void pursuant to MCL 566.108; MSA 26.908 because it did not specify in writing the unit to be purchased or the price of that unit, two essential terms. Even if I were to agree that an option is a permissible method of initial sale under the Condominium Act, I do not agree that an option was created here. In this case the evidence indicates that the unit to be purchased and the price of that unit were never agreed upon at all, in writing or otherwise. As the majority notes, option contracts, whether parol or written, involve the purchase of certain property at a fixed price within a specified period of time. Indeed, any contract to be binding requires a meeting of the minds as to its essential terms. Here, because the parties never agreed upon a unit or a unit price, I would hold they did not enter into an enforceable contract of any kind. Accordingly, I would reverse the decision of trial court and order plaintiff to return to defendants their $2,600 plus interest.