Williams v. Dardenne
345 S.W.3d 118
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Dardennes purchased a home from Williamses in November 2007 using the TREC standard form contract with an Acceptance of Property Condition provision listing termite repair as the negotiated remedy; the contract contains no merger or reliance disclaimer.
- Dardennes signed an independent inspection
- Dardennes reviewed several pre-purchase inspection reports disclosed by Williamses, including 2005 Gray (foundation concerns) and 2006 Sherlock (foundation signs) reports, and discussed Knight Engineering’s 2006 letter; Knight letter was not disclosed in the seller’s disclosure.
- Dardennes performed an independent post-purchase inspection; large cracks, doors misalignment, and floor movement appeared six to seven months after purchase, prompting suit.
- Dardennes alleged DTPA, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation for nondisclosure of the Knight letter; trial court entered verdict for Dardennes with damages and attorney’s fees.
- Court held that the “as is” clause negates causation and reliance for DTPA, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation and reverses to render a take-nothing judgment for Williamses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the as-is clause bars causation/reliance | Dardennes argue clause is not enforceable due to fraudulent inducement | Williamses rely on as-is to negate reliance/causation | As-is clause negates causation/reliance; JNOV proper on all claims |
| Whether fraudulent inducement evidence supports recovery | Knight letter nondisclosure induced agreement | No evidence Dardennes would not have entered contract if Knight letter disclosed | No evidence of inducement; as-is clause remains controlling; judgment for Williamses allows take-nothing on all claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Jefferson Assocs., Ltd., 896 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. 1995) (as-is provisions negate causation and reliance in property transactions)
- Welwood v. Cypress Creek Estates, Inc., 205 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2006) (as-is clauses generally negate causation for physical condition claims)
- Larsen v. Carlene Langford & Assocs., Inc., 41 S.W.3d 245 (Tex. App.-Waco 2001) (as-is language in contracts can conclusively negate reliance)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing legal sufficiency and JNOV)
- Requena v. Otis Elevator Co., 305 S.W.3d 156 (Tex. App.-Houston 2010) (jurisprudence on JNOV standards)
- Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. 2001) (fraudulent inducement elements in contract context)
- Grant Thornton LLP v. Prospect High Income Fund, 314 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. 2010) (proof requirements for fraudulent inducement)
- Aquaplex, Inc. v. Rancho La Valencia, Inc., 297 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. 2009) (reliance-proof standards in fraud claims)
- ISG State Operations, Inc. v. Nat'l Heritage Ins. Co., 234 S.W.3d 711 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2007) (standard for inducement proving in fraud claims)
- Camden Mach. & Tool, Inc. v. Cascade Co., 870 S.W.2d 304 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1993) (independently obtained knowledge defeats reliance)