Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.
994 S.W.2d 830 | Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) | 1999
Holding Summary
Summary judgment for defendants was properly granted because Flameout failed to satisfy the statute of frauds for an alleged three-year contract, as the three documents cited did not constitute a signed, enforceable written agreement for the sale of goods.
Flameout has produced no evidence of a writing sufficient to indicate a three-year contract.
Related Cases
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
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
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
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.
Green International, Inc. v. Solis
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.
Westech Engineering, Inc. v. Clearwater Constructors, Inc.
A subcontractor's equipment failed to meet contract specifications; the trial court properly found breach of contract and awarded damages for cover costs under UCC § 2-207 battle of the forms doctrine.
Reflectone, Inc. v. John H. Dalton, Secretary of the Navy
FAR 33.201 does not require a pre-existing dispute for a non-routine written demand seeking payment of a sum certain as a matter of right to constitute a CDA claim; the dispute requirement applies only to routine requests for payment.