Monday, August 20, 2018

Swearing match, but no evidence.

Originally published by David Coale.

Ferreira v. Russell presented a swearing match between the named parties about the quality of certain construction materials. The Fifth Court found no evidence of nondisclosure about the use of “surplus or repurposed” materials, and thus reversed a DTPA recover, when:

  • Russell admitted that he did not ask Ferreira to use only new materials and that Ferreira did not specifically say the materials would all be new.
  • When Russell was asked whether Ferreira told him he had a warehouse full of new equipment, he replied, “He said he had a warehouse with equipment.”
  • As to the specific representation Ferreira made, Russell said he was told that the materials would be suitable for a commercial building and would meet code. Russell further admitted that he simply assumed the material would all be new or first class and that it would not have been used.
  • Ferreira testified (without contradiction) that his company was doing the build-out for Russell because Russell could not afford any of the other companies they looked at, and thatFerreira was doing the work “for no profit.”
  • According to Ferreira, both he and Russell knew that some of the materials used to build the store would be new, some would be surplus (unused materials left over from other projects), and some would be repurposed (used) so that they could keep the cost within Russell’s budget.

No. 05-16-01235-CV (Aug. 13, 2018) (mem. op.)

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2OSmctX
via Abogado Aly Website

No comments:

Post a Comment