Tucson v. Farrington

Plaintiffs Tucson sued defendants Farrington for specific performance. Based on plaintiffs’ exhibit l,1 the trial court found that an enforceable agreement for the sale of defendants’ farm existed and entered a judgment for the equitable relief requested. The Court of Appeals, at 53 Mich App 149; 218 NW2d 816 (1974), agreed that the remedy was appropriate, but modified certain terms2 of the trial court’s judgment. We reverse, having determined that exhibit 1 is not sufficiently complete under the statute of frauds3 to justify specific performance.

Exhibit 1 was drafted and signed by the…