Where an option contract is unambiguous in its terms, is free from mistake, fraud or misrepresentation, and is free from unfairness, overreaching or deception, a court of equity will specifically enforce it as a matter of course.55

Where a consideration of one dollar was tendered to the vendee of such option contract, such consideration has been held sufficient to support an action of specific performance,

52. Pomeroy Eq. Jur., 2nd. Ed., Sec. 2103, and cases there cited.

53. See Note 60 ante.

54. Where one took possession of land under an oral contract that he should receive title thereto in consideration of supporting the owner during life, and made valuable improvements thereon while carrying out his agreement, he is entitled to specific performance, though title never passed during the owner's lifetime. Felt v. Felt, 118 N. W. 953, 155 Mich. 237.

Where an aged woman agreed to convey her property to complainant if he would manage the farm and take care of her and complainant did so for over ten years before her death, he is entitled to specific performance, though title never passed during the owner's lifetime. Howe v. Benedict, 142 N. W. 76S, 176 Mich.

55. George v. Schuman, 202 Mich. 241.

even though the party from whom such option had been taken neglected or refused to receive such sum.56

Where a contract for the sale of land follows from acceptance of an option, chancery courts, though recognizing the rule of law as applied to the option consideration, hold that in cases where specific performance is sought, sufficiency of price or adequacy of consideration must be in accordance with the equitable, not the legal rule.57

But where an instrument recites a consideration of one dollar, although no consideration was in fact paid or tendered, such an agreement is not sufficient to constitute a binding option.58