541 S.W.3d 355
Tex. App.2017Background
- Lindsey Construction leased three trucks from Enterprise; one (Ram 7007) had a major engine failure and was taken to AutoNation for diagnostics.
- AutoNation produced separate appraisal reports valuing each truck (Ram 7007 appraised at $13,500) and, according to Lindsey, orally stated those appraisals were purchase prices.
- Relying on those appraisals/representations, Lindsey terminated leases and took three replacement leased trucks; Enterprise bought the replacements from AutoNation, which purchased two of the trade-ins but did not purchase the Ram 7007.
- Enterprise later notified Lindsey that AutoNation had not bought the Ram 7007 and that Lindsey faced increased lease costs unless the truck was purchased for $13,500; AutoNation refused.
- Lindsey sued AutoNation (breach of implied-in-fact contract, DTPA, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference, and sought declaratory relief). The trial court granted AutoNation’s no-evidence and traditional summary-judgment motion; Lindsey appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of discovery before no-evidence summary judgment | Trial court cut off discovery too early; needed to complete depositions (e.g., Joseph Simon) | Adequate time had passed; plaintiff failed to file verified motion/affidavit showing need for more discovery | Court: no abuse of discretion — adequate discovery time existed; plaintiff did not preserve required continuance/affidavit showing need |
| Statute of Frauds (sales of goods writing requirement) | There was an enforceable agreement to buy Ram 7007 for $13,500 (implied-in-fact) | No writing satisfies Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 2.201; statute of frauds bars enforcement | Court: cannot affirm on statute-of-frauds ground because defendants did not raise it in their summary‑judgment motion (affirmative defense not argued as summary-judgment ground) |
| Breach of contract (implied-in-fact purchase agreement) | AutoNation represented it would buy each truck at the appraised price; Lindsey relied and thus an implied-in-fact contract was formed | No mutual assent/objective evidence that AutoNation agreed to purchase the Ram 7007 for $13,500 (Enterprise, not Lindsey, owned the truck) | Court: no evidence of mutual assent or objective circumstances to imply AutoNation agreed to buy the Ram 7007 for $13,500; summary judgment proper |
| DTPA, negligent misrepresentation, tortious interference | Sales rep misrepresented purchase terms/authority and failed to disclose conditions, inducing Lindsey’s reliance; caused damages | No evidence of the essential elements: no enforceable agreement to misrepresent; alleged statements were promises/future conduct, not misstatements of existing fact; no proof of willful, intentional interference | Court: summary judgment affirmed — DTPA claims lack proof of the required misrepresentations/authority; negligent-misrep claims fail because statements were promises (not existing-fact misstatements); tortious-interference claim lacks evidence of willful, intentional interference |
| Declaratory relief | AutoNation did not challenge declaratory claims in summary-judgment grounds; those claims should survive | Declaratory claims are derivative of the underlying claims that failed | Court: declaratory relief is derivative and falls with the dismissed claims; summary judgment stands |
Key Cases Cited
- M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2000) (burden-shifting in traditional summary-judgment review)
- Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 73 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2002) (no-evidence summary-judgment standard)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tamez, 206 S.W.3d 572 (Tex. 2006) (crediting evidence in summary-judgment review)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (definition of genuine fact issue)
- FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (affirming summary judgment if any ground is meritorious)
- Tenneco, Inc. v. Enter. Prods. Co., 925 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1996) (requirements for showing need for further discovery before summary judgment)
- Parker Drilling Co. v. Romfor Supply Co., 316 S.W.3d 68 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010) (inferring mutual intent for implied contracts from objective circumstances)
- Federal Land Bank Ass'n of Tyler v. Sloane, 825 S.W.2d 439 (Tex. 1991) (elements of negligent misrepresentation)
- Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. John Carlo Texas, Inc., 843 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1992) (intent requirement for tortious interference)
- Dagley v. Haag Eng'g Co., 18 S.W.3d 787 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (willfulness element in tortious-interference claims)
- Mañon v. Solis, 142 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (negligent-misrepresentation requires misstatement of existing fact, not future promises)
- Allied Vista, Inc. v. Holt, 987 S.W.2d 138 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (same)