-In the accompanying note 61 we have collected a number of Michigan decisions where, for various reasons, the option has been defeated.

paid rent and filed a bill for specific performance. The court entered a decree for the plaintiff and stipulated that the amount of the rentals paid by the plaintiff after a tender and demand for a deed would be applied on the purchase price. Mentlikowski v. Wisniewski, 173 Mich. 642.

Where brokers obtained an option from the owner on a farm to procure a purchaser for the owner at a specified price within a given period, the brokers are entitled to the compensation after finding a purchaser who is ready and willing to buy, and such a contract is not within the terms of the statute of frauds. Brittson v. Smith, 165 Mich. 222.

A stipulation in a lease giving the lessee the option to renew the lease and to purchase the property forms a part of the inducement for the execution of the lease, is founded on a sufficient consideration, and is valid though it is unilateral in the sense that the lessee is under no obligation to renew or purchase. Wright v. Raynor, 150 Mich. 7.

An option contract for the purchase of land, though it gives the purchaser the right to purchase or not at his option and gives him the choice of remedy by suit for specific performance or action for damages, while limiting the vendor in case of failure to purchase to stipulated damages of one dollar, was examined and held not unconscionable. Mier v. Hadden, 148 Mich. 488.

61. Where an option to purchase property at a specified price during the term of a lease was included in the lease, it is necessary that the plaintiff tender or make payment of the purchase price during the life of the lease before he is entitled to maintain a suit for specific performance. A failure to tender the amount or to make payment is a sufficient ground to deny relief to one asking for specfiic performance. Law v. McKechnie, 202 Mich. 284.

Plaintiff, a keen, shrewd business man and lawyer, took an option on land to convey by warranty deed certain premises signed by only two of three sisters owning the premises by joint tenancy. The sisters were about 70 years of ago and were not familiar with business or real estate and plaintiff did not explain to them the real situation, that they would be unable to fulfill the contract without their sister's signature, who, to his knowledge, refused to sign. The court held that he was guilty of such overreaching in the procurement of the option, although it did not amount to actual fraud, that a court of equity would refuse specifically enforce the option. Wayne Wood Land Co. v. Beeman, 211 Mich. 360.