Driver Pipeline Co. v. Mustang Pipeline Co.

69 S.W.3d 779 | Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana) | 2002

modifiedCited 6 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

A contractor's breach of a pipeline construction contract was established, but the owner failed to prove damages were reasonable and necessary, and the owner's termination was unjustified because the breach was not material.

Mere proof of amounts charged or paid does not raise an issue of reasonableness.

Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana), 2002

Related Cases

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.

Edwin P. Harrison, and United States of America, Party in Interest v. Westinghouse Savannah River Company

1999reversed

The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal, holding that the False Claims Act broadly reaches false statements made to obtain government contract approval, not just false payment claims themselves.

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.

United States v. Winstar Corp.

1996enforced

The Government's contractual promises regarding supervisory goodwill accounting treatment are enforceable despite subsequent regulatory changes, and the Government is liable for breach when Congress eliminated those accounting benefits.

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.