Staff Industries, Inc. v. Hallmark Contracting, Inc.
846 S.W.2d 542 | Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District | 1993
Holding Summary
A subcontractor's entitlement to payment under a unit-price contract is determined by the parties' intent regarding whether payment is based on materials delivered to the job site or materials actually incorporated into the project, which is a question of fact when the contract is ambiguous.
Payment shall be for the actual amount of such work done and material furnished.
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.
Heldenfels Bros. v. City of Corpus Christi
A municipality owes no duty to a subcontractor to ensure a general contractor provides valid payment bonds, and a subcontractor cannot recover from the municipality under quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or negligence theories when the general contractor abandons the project.
Flameout Design & Fabrication, Inc. v. Pennzoil Caspian Corp.
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.