McLellan v. Charly by https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc Fernanda De LaTorre en-us 2018-12-10 11:36:35 UTC 2025-10-29 18:36:41 UTC hello@padlet.com Facts fernanda902043 https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312862964 Roger Charly owned land in Madison, Wisconsin that was located between the University of Wisconsin’s Harlow Primate Psychology Laboratory and the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center. In 2003, the University became interested in buying the land from Charly, however, they became hesitant due to Charly’s asking price of  $1,000,000. Then in 2004, Rick Bogle met with Charly in hopes of buying the property in order to protest against the activities of the two neighboring facilities. Charly indicated he would sell it to Bogle for $750,000 if he raised the funds. Bogle was able to fundraise through Dr. Richard McLellan through an agreement of borrowing the funds in order to purchase the land. Bogle would then make payments on the loan. Charly and McLellan signed an agreement titled “Option to Purchase” which contained detailed provisions on the terms of the sale. The University became upset over the rally held by Bogle in 2005 and offered to buy the property from Charly again. Charly took the Option to Purchase document to a attorney for evaluation. Charly sent a letter to McLellan offering to enter into an enforceable option contract with different terms but McLellan declined.
Charly the received an offer for $1,000,000 from the university. McLellan then tried to exercise his supposed option by letter but was told by Charly’s attorney that he would not sell him the property.

]]> 2018-12-10 11:37:23 UTC https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312862964 History fernanda902043 https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312863965 Charly was sued by McLellan, Bogle, and the Primate Freedom Protect due to the breach of contract and promissory estoppel. After the trial court favored with the plaintiffs on the breach of contract theory but dismissed the promissory estoppel claims. However, Charly appealed the trial court’s determination.

]]> 2018-12-10 11:40:54 UTC https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312863965 Issues fernanda902043 https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312864051 Whether a valid option contract requires consideration that is distinct from the consideration that supports the underlying contract.

]]> 2018-12-10 11:41:11 UTC https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312864051 Holdings fernanda902043 https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312864127 The leaseback and repurchase provisions apply only if McLellan exercises the option within the designated time period. Therefore, if he doesn’t do so there is no contract for the sale and no benefit to Charly from the eprovisions. There is also no evidence that Charly requested something be done in regards to financing.

]]> 2018-12-10 11:41:27 UTC https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312864127 Reasonings fernanda902043 https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312864201 Charly’s promise not to revoke the offer was not supported by consideration separate from that for the sale, the option was not a binding irrevocable contract and could be withdrawn at any time before exercised within the time frame. Therefore McLellan is not entitled to enforcement of the option under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

]]> 2018-12-10 11:41:43 UTC https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312864201 Result fernanda902043 https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312864329 [W]e affirm the circuit court in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

]]> 2018-12-10 11:42:14 UTC https://padlet.com/fernanda902043/j91wwa8p7sdc/wish/312864329