Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hott v. Pearcy/Christon, Inc.

Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)

Decided November 4, 1983No. 05-82-00183-CVPublished

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

  1. City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin AuthorityTexas Supreme Court · 1979
  2. Chessher v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Echols v. BloomCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1972
  4. Orozco v. Texas General Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1981
  5. Tatum v. TatumCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API