## Facts

- Steinhauer owned real property and signed a writing offering to sell it, including a promise to keep the offer open for 90 days.
- The writing recited consideration of $1 for the option and required an additional $200 payment within the 90-day period.
- Sulzberger paid Steinhauer $1 for the option.
- Before the 90 days expired, Sulzberger tendered the $200 required by the option.
- Steinhauer refused the tender and refused to complete the sale.
- Sulzberger sued for specific performance; the trial court decreed specific performance.
- Steinhauer appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the option to keep a land-sale offer open for 90 days was supported by sufficient consideration—despite the nominal $1 amount—so as to be enforceable.
2. Whether timely tender of the $200 within the option period constituted a valid exercise of the option notwithstanding the optionor’s refusal to accept the tender.
3. Whether specific performance was an appropriate remedy once the option was validly exercised.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the decree granting specific performance to Sulzberger.
- The court treated the option as enforceable because the option consideration stated in the writing was actually paid and the additional payment was timely tendered.
- The court treated Steinhauer’s refusal to accept a proper, timely tender as not defeating the option’s exercise or the resulting obligation to convey the land.

## Legal Principles

- An option to keep an offer open for a definite period is enforceable when supported by consideration; a nominal sum may be sufficient if actually paid.
- When an option requires payment or tender within a stated time as a condition of exercise, timely tender satisfies the condition even if the optionor refuses to accept it.
- Upon valid exercise of a land-sale option, a binding contract arises, and specific performance is an available remedy because real property is treated as unique and damages may be inadequate.

## Conclusion

The court upheld specific performance because the land-sale option was supported by actual consideration and was timely exercised by tender, making the seller bound to convey despite refusing the tender.


Sulzberger v. Steinhauer, 235 Mich. 253, 209 N.W. 68 (Mich. 1926)