Chilton Insurance Co. v. Pate & Pate Enterprises, Inc.

930 S.W.2d 877 | Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) | 1996

modifiedCited 175 timesFLAGSHIPTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

A general contractor that judicially admits owing a subcontractor a specific credit amount and continues treating the contract as valid waives its right to claim the subcontractor's breach excuses non-payment.

Treating contract as continuing deprives non-breaching party of excuse for non-performance.

Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio), 1996

Related Cases

Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.

2013reversed

Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy

2002voided

Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.

Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

2004enforced

A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.

Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.

1999enforced

A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.

General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.

2001voided

The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.

Green International, Inc. v. Solis

1997modified

No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.