George Gregory v. Connecticut Shotgun Manufacturing Company
12-15-00304-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 8, 2017Background
- George Gregory, a competitive shooter, ordered two custom Grand American shotguns from Connecticut Shotgun Manufacturing Co. (CSM) in Feb 2012 to match his Winchester Model 21; order confirmations and terms were signed by Gregory.
- The order confirmations listed specifications and an anticipated ship date of September 2012 (the "Ship Date" field left blank); Gregory annotated the 12‑gauge order "same as the 21 that you are working on."
- Gregory paid in advance; the guns were delivered in January 2013. He claimed they were incorrect in weight/dimensions, lacked engraving, were painful to shoot, did not fit or aim properly, and sought refunds/repairs.
- Gregory sued CSM for breach of contract, fraud, breach of warranty, and DTPA violations. CSM moved for directed verdict on fraud, warranty, and DTPA claims; trial court granted that motion and excluded certain parol evidence and evidence of an unrelated prior transaction.
- The jury found no breach of contract; Gregory appealed, challenging exclusion of evidence, the directed verdict, and the omission of claims from the jury charge. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of parol evidence (alleged promises on dimensions, delivery date, refund) | Gregory: the written confirmations were not a fully integrated agreement; oral promises (matching Model 21 dimensions, Sept delivery, refund) are consistent/independently admissible for fraud/DTPA. | CSM: written order confirmations and terms contain essential, unambiguous terms; parol evidence that contradicts express terms is inadmissible. | Court: Affirmed exclusion under parol‑evidence rule because oral statements contradicted express, integrated written terms; exclusion not harmful. |
| Exclusion of extraneous transaction (Swann purchase) | Gregory: prior Swann transaction showing similar misrepresentations proves a pattern/scheme by CSM. | CSM: Swann involved a used gun four years earlier and is not sufficiently similar or temporally connected. | Court: Exclusion proper; single, remote transaction not temporally or substantively similar enough to show a common scheme. |
| Directed verdict on fraud, DTPA, and breach of warranty | Gregory: oral misrepresentations induced purchase (dimensions, delivery, refund); DTPA and warranty claims viable; fraud proven. | CSM: alleged conduct amounts only to breach of contract; DTPA/warranty claims cannot be asserted where only contractual obligations were breached; no evidence of fraud damages. | Court: Directed verdict proper. DTPA/warranty claims amount to contract claims; fraud failed for lack of damages (value of guns exceeded price paid). |
| Omission of fraud/DTPA/warranty issues from jury charge | Gregory: trial court should have submitted those claims to the jury. | CSM: issues disposed of as matter of law by directed verdict. | Court: Did not reach merits because directed verdict was proper; no reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bay Area Healthcare Grp., Ltd. v. McShane, 239 S.W.3d 231 (Tex. 2007) (trial court's evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Bowie Memorial Hosp. v. Wright, 79 S.W.3d 48 (Tex. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard)
- Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State, 66 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. 2001) (appellate review of excluded evidence requires showing exclusion probably resulted in improper judgment)
- Gee v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989) (excluded evidence not reversible unless controlling on material issue)
- Friendswood Development Co. v. McDade & Co., 926 S.W.2d 280 (Tex. 1996) (parol evidence considered only after finding ambiguity)
- David J. Sacks, P.C. v. Haden, 266 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. 2008) (parol evidence may not vary or contradict written contract)
- Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. 1997) (reliance on oral representations contradicted by written contract is not justified)
- Crawford v. Ace Sign, Inc., 917 S.W.2d 12 (Tex. 1996) (mere breach of contract, without more, is not a DTPA violation)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal‑sufficiency review and directed verdict analysis)
- Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng'rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (measures of damages for fraud: out‑of‑pocket and benefit‑of‑the‑bargain)