II Deerfield Ltd. Partnership v. Henry Building, Inc.
41 S.W.3d 259 | Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio) | 2001
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Deerfield and Henry Building settled a construction dispute but then Deerfield refused to participate in an architects' meeting required by the settlement to determine final payment. The Texas Court of Appeals ruled that Deerfield breached the settlement agreement by blocking this required step. The court enforced the full judgment against Deerfield, establishing that you cannot escape a contractual obligation by preventing the other party from completing their part of the deal.
Key Takeaways
- •If you sign a settlement agreement, you must actually perform all required steps—you cannot block meetings or processes and then claim the other side didn't perform.
- •Courts will hold you liable for preventing conditions that must happen before payment is due. Don't refuse to participate in required inspections, meetings, or architect reviews.
- •Settlement agreements are binding contracts. Blocking a final payment determination meeting is a material breach that can result in full judgment against you plus attorney's fees.
One who prevents performance of a condition precedent cannot avail himself of its nonperformance.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I refuse to attend a required meeting in a settlement agreement to avoid paying the other party?
No. Texas courts have ruled that blocking or preventing a required contractual step—like an architect's meeting for final payment—is itself a breach of the settlement. You cannot use non-performance as an excuse when you caused the non-performance. You must participate in all required processes.
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.
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.
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.
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.