Fairmech Industries v. Tisdale Company, Inc., 09-13-00529-CV

Fairmech agreed to supply "competent and skilled technical personnel" and daily verified logbooks to Tisdale to perform commissioning of HVAC systems on Daewoo and Hyundai offshore platforms; payment required within 10 days of invoice supported by log-sheets.
Fairmech submitted three invoices (≈ $13,333; $28,180; $13,676) that Tisdale refused to pay, claiming lack of supporting documentation and that Fairmech sent unqualified workers without proper tools or safety equipment.
Tisdale’s supervisor, Jerry Hill, testified he performed pre-commissioning and commissioning himself because Fairmech’s workers were unqualified or absent; Tisdale president Lloyd Tisdale testified he never received supporting time sheets/logs.
Fairmech witnesses (partners and VP) testified Fairmech provided qualified personnel and sent time sheets, but produced no retained copies and had limited firsthand knowledge; credibility issues were highlighted by familial ties between a Tisdale project manager (Kapur) and Fairmech partners.
A jury found Tisdale breached the contract, but that Tisdale’s failure was excused by Fairmech’s prior material breach; the trial court entered judgment that Fairmech take nothing. Fairmech appealed arguing legal and factual insufficiency of the evidence that its performance was previously deficient and material.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fairmech)	Defendant's Argument (Tisdale)	Held
Whether evidence is legally sufficient to support jury finding that Tisdale’s failure was excused by Fairmech’s prior material breach	Fairmech argued the evidence overwhelmingly shows it performed and that a 1996 fax acknowledged Tisdale’s indebtedness	Tisdale argued Fairmech failed to provide qualified personnel and failed to produce supporting logbooks/time sheets, depriving Tisdale of the contract’s main benefit	Held: Affirmed — legally sufficient evidence supported finding that Fairmech materially breached, excusing Tisdale’s performance
Whether evidence is factually sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Fairmech materially breached (qualifications/tools/documentation)	Fairmech urged the jury should credit its witnesses that qualified workers and records were provided	Tisdale pointed to Hill’s firsthand testimony that he performed the work, Lloyd’s lack of received documentation, and credibility problems of Fairmech witnesses	Held: Affirmed — factual sufficiency supports jury’s credibility-based resolution for Tisdale; verdict not clearly wrong or unjust

Associated Indem. Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 276 (Tex. 1998) (party asserting breach bears burden of proof)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard for jury findings)
Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., L.C., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (standard when challenger lacked burden of proof)
Mustang Pipeline Co., Inc. v. Driver Pipeline Co., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 195 (Tex. 2004) (factors for material breach and discharge of contractual duties)
Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (prior material breach as affirmative defense)
Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 444 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. 2014) (circumstantial-evidence review guidance)
Levine v. Steve Scharn Custom Homes, Inc., 448 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (breach materiality is a fact question)