Sandeep Nanda v. Corey Huinker, 13-13-00615-CV

Nanda negotiated by e-mail to buy Huinker’s Austin condominium; Nanda prepared and signed a TREC residential condominium contract form and emailed it to Huinker.
Huinker reviewed the form, requested clarifications, told Nanda he would “get you the paperwork shortly,” but never returned or delivered the signed TREC form.
Huinker later told Nanda by phone and email he would not finalize or continue negotiations and signed a separate contract to sell to a different buyer.
Nanda sued for breach of contract and specific performance; Huinker asserted the statute of frauds and moved for traditional summary judgment, submitting an affidavit admitting he signed but did not deliver the contract.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Huinker on statute-of-frauds grounds, denied Nanda’s continuance/expedited discovery requests, and later awarded Huinker attorney’s fees; Nanda appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statute of frauds bars enforcement of the contract	Nanda: signed instrument in Huinker’s possession is sufficient; delivery not required	Huinker: no enforceable contract because signed writing was never delivered and there was no mutual assent	Court: Affirmed—no enforceable contract; delivery/manifestation of assent required under statute of frauds
Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying discovery/continuance before summary judgment	Nanda: denial deprived him of ability to obtain evidence rebutting statute-of-frauds defense	Huinker: Nanda failed to specify needed discovery or its materiality; court properly denied continuance	Court: Affirmed—Nanda waived/failed to justify continuance; denial not an abuse of discretion
Relevance of evidence (signature) at attorney-fee hearing	Nanda: questions about existence/signature of contract were relevant	Huinker: signature irrelevant to attorney-fee determination after statute-of-frauds ruling	Court: Affirmed—signature evidence irrelevant to fee hearing; trial court did not abuse discretion
Whether newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial	Nanda: counsel’s statement that Huinker signed but did not deliver was a judicial admission/new evidence	Huinker: same fact was already in summary judgment affidavit; evidence cumulative	Court: Affirmed—no basis for new trial; evidence cumulative and would not change result

Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard of review for traditional summary judgment)
Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. 2007) (delivery and intent to bind are part of mutual assent for written contracts)
Tenneco Inc. v. Enterprise Products Co., 925 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1996) (affidavit or verified motion required to obtain continuance for discovery before summary judgment)
Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (requirements for showing need for additional discovery to oppose summary judgment)
Jackson v. Van Winkle, 660 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. 1983) (standards for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)