Pleasant Grove Independent School District v. FieldTurf USA Inc. and Altech, Inc., 648 S.W.3d 608

Pleasant Grove ISD contracted for a FieldTurf Prestige XM-60 artificial turf with an eight-year limited warranty that expressly provided, at FieldTurf’s option, only repair or replacement and stated those were the exclusive remedies (no cash refunds or other damages).
The turf began degrading within about five years; FieldTurf inspected, offered remedial work (including a "laymor scrape"), and refused full replacement; the district replaced the field at its own expense and sued for fraud and breach of warranty.
The trial court granted summary judgment for some defendants, tried the warranty claim against FieldTurf, and a jury found FieldTurf breached the warranty and awarded $175,000 in actual damages.
FieldTurf moved for JNOV arguing the warranty limited remedies to repair/replace and the district offered no legally cognizable damages evidence; the trial court denied JNOV; appeals followed and the Texas Supreme Court remanded several issues to this court.
On remand the court held (1) the warranty’s plain language made repair or replacement the exclusive remedies, (2) the jury instruction applying the UCC §2.714(b) market-value-difference measure was correct, and (3) the District offered no evidence of the market-value difference required under §2.714(b), so the damages award was reversed and a take-nothing judgment rendered in favor of FieldTurf.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the express warranty limited remedies to repair or replacement and thus barred money damages	District: warranty changes measure of damages to cost to repair/replace (expectancy)	FieldTurf: warranty clearly limits remedies to repair or replacement under UCC §2.719(a)	Held: warranty language is unambiguous; repair or replacement are exclusive remedies; district not entitled to other damages absent an exception
Whether the trial court erred by refusing an instruction that damages = replacement cost (benefit-of-the-bargain)	District: jury should have been instructed to award cost to repair/replace (expectancy)	FieldTurf: UCC §2.714(b) (value-difference) is the correct remedy if exclusive remedy fails of essential purpose	Held: court did not abuse discretion — Section 2.714(b) market-value-difference instruction was proper; the requested replacement-cost instruction was not the UCC warranty remedy
Whether the exclusive remedy failed of its essential purpose and, if so, whether damages were proved	District: (argued at trial) could recover money if remedy failed of essential purpose and jury found that	FieldTurf: even if remedy failed, District produced no evidence of market-value difference required by §2.714(b)	Held: regardless of whether failure-of-essential-purpose was pled/found, District presented no evidence of the required market-value difference; damages award unsupported; JNOV warranted

PPG Indus., Inc. v. JMB/Houston Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship, 146 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2004) (upholding exclusive remedy language limiting recovery to replacement)
Mostek Corp. v. Chemetron Corp., 642 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1982) (exclusive sole-remedy warranty enforced)
Chaq Oil Co. v. Gardner Mach. Corp., 500 S.W.2d 877 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1973) (buyer failed where only repair/replacement cost evidence offered, not market-value difference)
Equistar Chems., L.P. v. ClydeUnion DB, Limestone, 579 S.W.3d 505 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019) (exclusive remedy must be clearly expressed)
W.O. Bankston Nissan v. Walters, 754 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. 1988) (benefit-of-the-bargain described as difference between represented value and value received)
URI, Inc. v. Kleberg Cty., 543 S.W.3d 755 (Tex. 2018) (contract interpretation principles)
Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2012) (standards for jury instructions)
Tanner v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 289 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. 2009) (no-evidence/JNOV review standard)