Hott v. Pearcy/Christon, Inc.
Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)
1DissentSparling, Justice
The majority devotes considerable space to the issue of whether the document in question was an option or a contract of sale. I find the majority’s conclusion unnecessary because an option is a contract — for which there must be consideration. Therefore, if there was no consideration passing from Hott to Pearcy/Christon — as majority contends and I agree — the document was a nudum pactum: no contract at all. This is a basic truth regardless of whether the document is an option or a contract of sale.
I further disagree with the majority’s disposition of the issues of estoppel and fraud.…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin AuthorityTexas Supreme Court · 1979
- Chessher v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1983
- Echols v. BloomCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1972
- Orozco v. Texas General Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1981
- Tatum v. TatumCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.