Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

El Dorado Land Company sold property to the City of McKinney for use as a park. El Dorado's special warranty deed provided that the conveyance was subject to the restriction that the community only be used for that purpose. If the City decided not to use the property as a community park, the deed granted El Dorado the right to purchase the property. Ten years after acquiring the property, the City built a public library on part of the land. El Dorado notified the City it intended to exercise its option to purchase, but after the City failed to acknowledge El Dorado's rights under the deed, El Dorado sued for inverse condemnation. The trial court sustained the City's plea to the jurisdiction, finding that El Dorado's claim did not involve a compensable taking of property but, rather, a breach of contract for which the City's governmental immunity had not been waived. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, in its deed to the City, El Dorado retained a reversionary interest in the property that was a property interest capable of being taken by condemnation. Remanded. View "El Dorado Land Co., LP v. City of McKinney" on Justia Law

Richmont Holdings purchased the assets of Superior Recharge Systems. The terms of the sales were set out in a purchase agreement that included a provision for binding arbitration of any dispute relating to the agreement. In connection with the sale, Richmont Holdings agreed to hire John Blake for a period of two years. The employment agreement did not include an arbitration provision. Six months later, Blake's employment was terminated. Blake sued Richmont. Richmont answered and later moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Richmont waived its arbitration rights because it had substantially invoked the judicial process. The court of appeals affirmed but on different grounds, holding that the parties did not have a valid agreement to arbitrate because the dispute arose exclusively out of the employment agreement. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court of appeals' failure to recognize the arbitration agreement at issue in this case was contrary to the Court's precedent, which mandates enforcement of such an agreement absent proof of a defense. Remanded to consider the waiver of defense raised below. View "Richmont Holdings, Inc v. Superior Recharge Sys., LLC" on Justia Law

Shipper engaged Common Carrier to transport computer equipment belonging to Company. Company claimed the shipment was damaged on arrival, and Common Carrier refused to pay the amount that Company claimed Common Carrier had agreed to settle the claim for. Company asserted a claim against Shipper, whose Insurer paid Company. As subrogee, Insurer sued Common Carrier for breach of the settlement agreement. Insurer avoided removal to federal court by not asserting a cargo-damage claim, but, on remand, amended its petition to assert one. Common Carrier contended the cargo-damage claim was barred by limitations because Insurer filed it more than four years after Common Carrier rejected Company's claim. Insurer argued the cargo-damage claim related back to its original action for breach of the settlement agreement and thus was timely filed. The trial court agreed and rendered judgment against Common Carrier. The court of appeals held the cargo-damage claim did not relate back and was therefore barred by limitations. The Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for Insurer, holding that Insurer's cargo-damage claim was not barred by limitations, as the cargo-damage claim and breach-of-settlement claim both arose out of the same occurrence and, therefore, the relation-back doctrine applied. View "Lexington Ins. Co. v. Daybreak Express, Inc." on Justia Law

A pipeline owner (Owner) purchased sixty-eight mile-long pipeline constructed in the 1940s and made plans to remove the old pipeline and construct a new one that would carry butane. Owner awarded Contractor the contract to replace a certain section of the pipeline. After Contractor commenced work, Contractor filed suit against Owner for breach of contract and fraud based on Owner's failure to locate several hundred "foreign crossings" in the pipeline's path and its subsequent refusal to compensate Contractor for its additional expenses resulting from the obstacles. The trial court found in favor of Owner, finding that the parties' contract allocated the risk of any additional cost incurred because of foreign crossings to Contractor. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Owner failed to exercise due diligence in locating the foreign crossings. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's judgment, holding (1) the contract allocated all risk to Contractor for unknown obstacles discovered during the construction process; and (2) the jury's answers to questions about Contractor's recovery for breach of contract based on due diligence were immaterial. View "El Paso Field Servs., L.P. v. MasTec N.A., Inc." on Justia Law

This case was before the Supreme Court a second time and concerned a business dispute between Rancho La Valencia, Inc. and Aquaplex, Inc. In the earlier appeal, the Court held that the evidence of fraudulent intent by Rancho in connection with the execution of a memorandum of settlement agreement was legally sufficient but that the evidence did not support damages to the level awarded by the trial court. On remand, the court of appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial on the issue of damages. Rancho appealed, complaining that the court of appeals should have remanded the case for a new trial on both liability and damages, as Rancho requested in a motion for rehearing to the court of appeals. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Tex. R. App. P. 44.1 required the court of appeals to remand for a new trial on both liability and damages. Remanded. View "Rancho La Valencia, Inc. v. Aquaplex, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a suit by ExxonMobil Corporation against DSTJ, LLP and Milestone Operating, Inc. (collectively Milestone). After Milestone failed to answer, ExxonMobil obtained a default judgment. Milestone appealed, arguing that service on Donald Harlan - DSTJ's partner and Milestone Operating, Inc.'s director and registered agent - was defective, and that Milestone established the necessary elements set forth in Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. to set aside the default judgment. The trial court denied the motion for new trial. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Milestone failed to meet its burden to satisfy Craddock's first element. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that because the evidence in this case established that Defendants' failure to answer was no intentional or the result of conscious indifference, Defendants' motion for new trial could not be denied on the ground that Defendants failed to satisfy the first Craddock element. Remanded. View "Milestone Operating, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether mere statements of intent to discontinue a joint venture cause automatic dissolution of the venture as a matter of law. Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of an oral agreement, alleging that Defendant promised to transfer his interest in the venture to Plaintiff. Defendant denied the existence of this contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that Defendant's communications to Plaintiff were conclusive evidence of dissolution of the joint venture and warranted summary judgment on the basis that Defendant lacked standing to assert any claims to the venture. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Defendant produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to his intent to dissolve the partnership, the court of appeals erred in affirming summary judgment on that basis. Remanded. View "Buck v. Palmer" on Justia Law

This case involved the duties and standard of care of an oil and gas operator under an exculpatory clause in a joint operating agreement (JOA). Based on language in the exculpatory clause in the JOA, the trial court instructed the jury to find that to find a breach of the JOA the operator's conduct must have risen to the level of gross negligence or willful misconduct. The jury found the operator, Petitioner, breached his duties under the JOA to the working interest owners. The court of appeals affirmed, holding (1) the gross negligence and willful misconduct instruction should not have been included in the charge because the case centered around a breach of contract; but (2) there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that Petitioner breached his duty as operator when measured against the elements of breach of contract. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the exculpatory clause in the JOA established the standard for the claims against Petitioner; and (2) there was legally insufficient evidence that Petitioner was grossly negligent or acted with willful misconduct. View "Reeder v. Wood County Energy, LLC" on Justia Law

The issue in this case was whether an appellate court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a trial court order confirming an arbitration award in part and vacating the award in part based on the existence of unresolved questions of law or fact necessary to a ruling, yet the trial court did not expressly direct a rehearing. The court of appeals held that it did not have jurisdiction over the appeal, holding (1) the judgment was not final because it did not contain finality language or otherwise state that it was a final judgment and necessarily contemplated resolution of the remaining issues by way of a rehearing, and therefore, the appeal was interlocutory; and (2) no statute permitted an appeal in this case. The Supreme Court affirmed and, for different reasons, dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding (1) the appeal was interlocutory; (2) the Texas Arbitration Act did not provide jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal; and (3) there is no jurisdiction over arbitration awards that are incomplete unless, under certain circumstances, the parties file a writ of mandamus, which neither party here filed. View "Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought a Deceptive Trade Practices Act suit against Company and its co-operators for violating the terms of a contract. Through a process server, Plaintiff served all three Defendants with citations, but one citation contained an error in a co-operator's name. Defendants failed to file a timely answer, and Plaintiff obtained a default judgment. Defendants filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that service on the co-operator was improper and that Defendants established the necessary Craddock elements to set aside the default judgment. The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendants asserted facts that, if true, established the first Craddock element, i.e., that the failure to appear was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference but was the result of a mistake or an accident. Remanded for consideration of the second and third elements of the Craddock test.