Aрpellants, plaintiffs and counter-defendants in the trial court, seek review of a-final decree on a counterclaim which found that the appellants, as optionors, had no right to- terminate an option but, rather than reinstating the option which pertainеd to real estate, the chancellor ordered the return of monies to the appellee, Marlin Development Company paid under the agreement and transfеrred the matter to the common law side оf the court for a determination of damages. The appellants have appealed and brought said final decree оn for review.
We affirm the chancellor’s finding thаt the appellants had no right to terminate the option, but reverse those portions of the decree wherein he adjudicаted the return of the monies advanced аnd the transfer of the case to the law side of the court to determine damages, with directions to enter a final decree rеinstating the option and! abating the option period from the date of the abortive termination letter, [to wit: March 12, 1963] until the effeсtive date of this court’s mandate.
The oрtionee [for consideration] during the term of his option has a right that the option giver shаll not repudiate nor make performance impossible or more difficult, and said right is enforceable by all the usiial judicial remedies including judgment for damages, injunction and decree for specific performance. See: McFerran v. Heroux,
Therefore, the actions of the chancellor are affirmed in part and reversed in part, with directions as set forth above.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part, with directions.