Hearthshire Braeswood Plaza Ltd. Partners v. Bill Kelly Co.
849 S.W.2d 380 | Court of Appeals of Texas | 1993
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A Texas court ruled that arbitration agreements in construction contracts are enforceable and must be honored. The trial court had wrongly denied arbitration when the other party claimed fraud without providing solid evidence. The court emphasized that Texas strongly favors arbitration as a way to resolve construction disputes. This means if you have an arbitration clause in your contract, you can force the other party to arbitrate rather than go to court—unless they can prove fraud or unfair terms with real evidence.
Key Takeaways
- •Make sure your construction contracts include clear arbitration clauses—Texas courts will enforce them and push disputes to arbitration instead of litigation
- •If the other party tries to avoid arbitration by claiming fraud, they must back it up with actual evidence; vague accusations won't work
- •Arbitration can be faster and cheaper than court, so having this clause protects you from lengthy lawsuits
Arbitration is favored by the courts of this state.
Frequently Asked Question
Can the other party force me into court instead of arbitration if they claim I committed fraud?
No. Texas courts strongly favor arbitration clauses in construction contracts. The other party must present real evidence of fraud to avoid arbitration—not just accusations. Without solid proof, the arbitration clause will be enforced and your dispute will go to arbitration, not court.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
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
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.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
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.
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.
Rory v. Continental Insurance
Unambiguous contractual limitations periods in insurance policies must be enforced as written unless they violate law or public policy; judicial assessments of reasonableness cannot override clear contract terms.