History
  • No items yet
midpage
Mistletoe Express Service of Oklahoma City v. Locke
762 S.W.2d 637
Tex. App.
1988
Check Treatment

*1 is some whether there evidence finding, jury’s viewing the evidence in finding. most favorable Bennett, (Tex. v.

Williams

1980); Fire Ins. County National Mutual Wallace, (Tex.App.— v. 673 S.W.2d

Co. writ). Here, Dist.] [1st evidence that re

there some Monroe truthfully questions con

sponded application: she indicated that

tained veins, from varicose varicose

she suffered

ulcers, hernia, phlebitis, or and also that physician treated for a on application. listed

condition not responding, placed American

so Monroe on notice that she had been treated

States inquired other

for a condition than

about. judgment.

We affirm the trial court’s

MISTLETOE EXPRESS SERVICE OF CITY, OKLAHOMA,

OKLAHOMA

Appellant,

v.

Phyllis LOCKE, Freight Paris d/b/a

Company, Appellee.

No. 9641. Texas, Appeals

Court

Texarkana.

Nov. 1988.

Rehearing Denied Nov. McCracken, McCracken, Taylor &

H.C. P.C., Carrollton, appellant. Nelson, Flanary, Paris, appellee. Bill *2 CORNELIUS, placed Chief Justice. to be in position he would have in been had the performed, contract been appeals Service and therefore only Locke could recover the adverse in a breach of con- profits she lost reason of the breach. tract suit. Phyllis Locke, doing business as Paris general It is a rule that the victim Freight Company, entered into a contract of a breach of contract should be restored 18, 1984, with Mistletoe on October which position he would have been in had provided perform pick- a performed. Determining up delivery and service for Mistletoe at position finding involves what addi in various locations Texas. The contract injured party’s tions to the wealth have year 1, term was one from October prevented by and breach what term, At expiration of the initial subtractions from his wealth have been agreement would continue on a month-to- caused it. 5 Corbin on Contracts party basis until either terminated requires Where the contract § by thirty-day written notice. capital a parties investment one of the perform contract, order to it was perform, in order to party’s reasonable necessary for Locke to make certain invest- expectation profit recouping includes ments and In uncontrovert- capital expending investment. The party testimony, spent she stated that she good would not in as as if the $8,500.00 for materials to build a steel and contract had been if he is not pipe ramp $1,000.00 and for dirt work. She i.e., afforded the opportunity, the full con also borrowed with which she term, tract recoup to his investment. $9,000.00 two vehicles for and Publishing Chronicle Co. v. $6,000.00 paid starting-up expenses. for Trucklease, Inc., McNair 519 S.W.2d 924 She testified that she would not have done (Tex.Civ.App. 1975, [1st Dist.] —Houston any things of these had she not made the n.r.e.). writ ref’d expendi To recover these company with Mistletoe. Locke’s they tures must reasonably have been profit, never made although the losses performance in made of the contract or in decreased each month while the contract necessary preparation. Id., at 930. was in force. (Second) The Restatement 15, May On Mistletoe notified (1981) states: § planned Locke that it to cancel the contract [expectation As an to alternative dam- effective June 1985. Locke closed ages], injured party right has a to business and sold the vehicles damages interest, based on his reliance $6,000.00, taking $3,000.00. a loss of At including expenditures in prepara- made trial, $9,750.00 time of Locke still owed performance performance, tion for or in $15,000.00 loan, on her paid and had any party less loss that the in $2,650.00 breach can in interest. She testified that the prove with certainty reasonable the in- customized was worth $500.00 as jured party scrap. would have suffered She considered had the pended for contract been expense. dirt work a lost Further, (Second) in jury $19,- damages found Locke’s Con- at (1981), 400.00. The court entered tracts comment a the authors amount, plus prejudgment interest and of the Restatement state: attorney’s fees of Section, Under the rule stated in this injured chooses, party may, if he ignore

Mistletoe’s sole contention is that the element of granted should have it a recover as directed damages judgment notwithstanding verdict or his in reliance. verdict, may because there is He choose to no evidence to do this ... in the case jury losing which the of a award- one under which he gist ed. The is that the would have had a loss rather than a victim of a contract profit. case, however, breach In that open it is Justice, GRANT, concurring. prove the breach the extent that he fundamen This case seems violate the certainty un- do so with can reasonable injured that an tal tenet law der the standard stated put not be in a better party should *3 injured par- have it subtracted from the contract had than if the added.) damages. ty’s (Emphasis Farnsworth, E. Contracts See §§ rules, the entitled to Under these Locke is damages for (1982). of The usual measure per- expenditures she incurred in order to is neces the amount a breach tes- her contract. Her uncontradicted form financial plaintiff the in a sary place prove of timony exhibits the amounts would equivalent to that which she damages. these fully if the contract had been have had Mistletoe’s parties. Darling Little both have must show what Inc., (Tex.Civ. Ald, Corp. v. could at the earliest time the contract writ). no The outcome App.—Dallas misplaced. is legally have been terminated surprising case is of present of the rules, recover her the cited she can Under had con Phyllis testimony Locke’s that she de she was reliance because money each under the sistently lost recoup those prived opportunity of an projection and there was no Moreover, not Mistletoe is that she would have made show to have Locke’s losses deducted during last the contract. the months of recovery, the because Mistletoe Thus, appeared amount, prove any, if the burden to might money have saved terminat (Sec not do so. and it did ing early.1 ond) (1981). comment of under past projected If total loss the evidence, however, There is no equaled the contract had or exceeded the fig of That award costs, Phyllis unrecouped reliance then resale ure includes both loss from the to a not have been entitled Locke would purchased of the vehicles which with were However, damages. recovery for the loan and the of the current balance showing the figures record contains loan. Locke’s reliance were calcu- Phyllis loss or how Locke ($15,000.00), amount of the loan less the correctly the majority the loss. As lated recovered of the amount from the sale out, party has the breaching points loan property with proving The of loss. burden ($6,000.00). resulting should figure loss ception would be when the be added to cost of the dirt work fault of the available because of the not ($1,000.00) and the materials loss from the suffering The record loss. Furthermore, ($3,000.00). for the not that the loss present case does show receiving recovery Locke would a double figure not available. the amount was Since if recovers of the also the full amount unknown, used to the loss is it cannot be of paid on the interest loan as well as negate damages. reliance judg interest prejudgment allowed ment. stated,

For the reasons

the trial court is reformed to award Locke $13,000.00, plus

damages in the sum of days, interest for 910

prejudgment thereon attorney’s fees

plus as award- reformed, original judgment. in the As is affirmed. may prevent wrongdoer. a loss as 5 Corbin on Contracts 1. A breach prevents one. well as cause Insofar as it amount will be in favor of the credited

Case Details

Case Name: Mistletoe Express Service of Oklahoma City v. Locke
Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas
Date Published: Nov 1, 1988
Citation: 762 S.W.2d 637
Docket Number: 9641
Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.