Texas Construction Law Updates
Texas Supreme Court refuses to look beyond the contract language to determine a party’s obligationsJason Cagle - Tuesday, April 03, 2018
The Texas Supreme Court recently declined to look beyond an agreement’s clear language to trigger one party’s obligations. This was despite the other party’s insistence that pre-contract negotiations proved that the obligations had to be triggered. As a result, the other party did not get the performance that it thought was included in its bargain.
In URI, Inc. v. Kleberg County, the parties entered into an agreement in which URI could resume its uranium-mining operations, provided URI restored water quality in certain wells. At the time the agreement was formed, data suggested that multiple wells would meet the criteria to qualify for restoration. However, later data showed that no wells met the criteria. Kleberg County argued that URI should be required to restore wells based on the earlier data and not the later data.
The Texas Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the agreement was unambiguous as to URI’s obligations. Under the parol-evidence rule, facts and circumstances surrounding a unambiguous contract’s execution can be used to determine the context and meaning of the contract language, but cannot be used to augment, alter, or contradict the contract’s terms. Here, the parties’ expectation that the data would show that some wells’ water was suitable for specified uses before mining was extrinsic evidence that contradicted the agreement’s language requiring actual data showing that the water met the criteria to trigger URI’s restoration obligation. The Court therefore determined the parties’ intent based on the unambiguous language in the agreement, even though that language excused URI from performing any well restorations prior to resuming its mining activities and despite Kleberg County’s expectations.
This case illustrates the importance of carefully drafting contract provisions, particularly when one party’s obligations are conditioned on facts that will not be fully known until a later date.
This blog entry was written by Eric Etheridge and Jason Cagle.
- Insurance claims can be denied completely unless the owner or contractor can show how much damage resulted from causes covered under the policy
- Liquidated-damage provision enforced by Houston Court of Appeals
- Texas Supreme Court refuses to look beyond the contract language to determine a party’s obligations
- 2017 Legislative Updates
- Construction contracts can incorporate documents executed by the parties without describing them with specificity
- Partial performance can overcome the absence of a written contract
- Arbitration agreement found unenforceable because employer could modify it without advance notice to the employee
- Challenges to overall enforceability of a contract can be determined by an arbitrator
- Failure to investigate contractor’s performance may prevent an owner from later recovering damages for latent defects
- Pay attention to the signature block and guaranty provisions when signing a contract
- Arbitration (2)
- Condition Precedent (1)
- Construction Contracts (5)
- Construction Defects (1)
- Employment Contracts (1)
- Federal Courts (1)
- Government Contracts (1)
- Guaranty Agreement (1)
- Indemnity (1)
- Individual Liability (1)
- Insurance (1)
- Legislative Update (1)
- Limitations (1)
- Notice of Claim (1)
- Real-Estate Contracts (1)
- Settlement Agreements (2)
- Trust Fund Act (1)