Palmer v. Fox

Michigan Supreme Court
264 N.W. 361 (1936)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A vendor's covenant to make substantial improvements in a land sale contract is a dependent covenant. A vendor who commits a substantial breach of this covenant cannot maintain an action to recover the unpaid purchase price from the vendee.

Facts:

On September 28, 1925, Louis G. Palmer & Company entered into a land contract with the defendant for the sale of a lot in a Detroit subdivision.
The contract required the defendant to pay the purchase price of $1,650 on or before five years from the date of the contract.
The contract also contained a covenant obligating Louis G. Palmer & Company to make several improvements, including grading and either cinderizing or graveling all streets in the subdivision.
The defendant made all required payments up to February 11, 1931, by which time the five-year payment period had passed.
Louis G. Palmer & Company completed most improvements, such as installing sidewalks, water mains, and sewers.
However, Louis G. Palmer & Company graded but failed to cinderize or gravel Westwood Avenue, the street on which the defendant's lot was located.
On March 1, 1930, Louis G. Palmer & Company assigned its interest as vendor to Grace H. Palmer, for whom Louis G. Palmer later became trustee.

Procedural Posture:

Grace H. Palmer, as assignee of the vendor, sued the defendant in a Michigan trial court to recover the unpaid balance of the land contract.
During the trial, Louis G. Palmer was substituted as the plaintiff in his capacity as trustee.
The case was tried by the court without a jury.
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiff and entered a judgment against the defendant for the principal and interest due.
The defendant appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Michigan.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a vendor's covenant to make improvements in a land sale contract, such as surfacing streets, a dependent covenant, the substantial breach of which prevents the vendor from suing to recover the unpaid purchase price?

Opinions:

Majority - Toy, J.

Yes. A vendor's covenant to make improvements is a dependent covenant, and a substantial breach of it bars the vendor from recovering the unpaid purchase price. The modern rule is to construe covenants as dependent unless a contrary intention clearly appears, as a party should not be forced to pay for something they did not receive. Here, the parties intended the improvements and payments to be completed concurrently within the five-year contract period. The improvements were an essential part of the consideration; the defendant bargained for an improved lot, not merely a plot of land. The failure to surface the street was a substantial and material breach because without a proper street, the other improvements like water and sidewalks are of little value, as there is no convenient way to and from the property. Because the plaintiff (vendor's assignee) was guilty of a substantial breach of a dependent covenant, this action for the purchase price cannot be maintained.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the modern legal preference for treating mutual promises in contracts, particularly land development contracts, as dependent covenants. It establishes that a developer's failure to provide essential infrastructure is a material breach of the contract, not a minor failure that can be remedied with a small monetary offset. This precedent protects land purchasers by ensuring they receive the full value of their bargain and are not forced to pay the entire purchase price for an incomplete or inaccessible property. The ruling forces vendors to complete their promised obligations before they can enforce the vendee's obligation to pay.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Palmer v. Fox (1936)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature