 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Adams v. H & H Meat Products3/1/2001
Appellant, Norwick Adams, III, a/k/a Wick Adams ("Adams"), appeals from the trial court's judgment rendered in favor of appellee, H & H Meat Products, Inc. ("H&H;). By seven issues, Adams contends: (1) the trial court erred by rendering judgment against him for (a) contract of sale or sworn account, (b) breach of contract of guarantee, and (c) promissory estoppel, fraud, and quantum meruit; (2) the trial court erred by awarding H&H;damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees; and (3) the trial court erred by not making findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm.
A. Background
Adams is employed by and is the director general and a minority shareholder of Desarrollos W. De Alimentos Del Norte S.A. de C.V. ("Whataburger Mexico"). Desarrollos holds the Whataburger franchise for Monterrey and Guadalajara. H&H;is a company that sells meat products to Whataburger franchises in the United States. Sometime in 1991 or 1992, Liborio Hinojosa ("Hinojosa"), the president and CEO of H&H; met with Adams to set up a procedure so that meat products could be sent to Mexico for Whataburger Mexico.
Adams or an associate ordered meat products from H&H;by fax or telephone. Adams instructed H&H;to ship the ordered meat products to S.R. Forwarding, a forwarding agent in Laredo, Texas. Adams also instructed H&H;to invoice the meat products in the name of Proveedora de Alimentos Contratados, S.A. de C.V. ("PAC") because PAC had a permit to import meat products into Mexico, and Adams did not. PAC would then sell the meat to Whataburger Mexico.
The case stems from three unpaid shipments of meat that were delivered by H&H;to S.R. Forwarding pursuant to Adams' instructions. The dates of these shipments are August 3, 1994 (in the amount of $7,172.70), August 8, 1994 (in the amount of $6,614.93), and August 16, 1994 (in the amount of $2,232.00). All three shipments were delivered to Whataburger Mexico.
When H&H;asked PAC why the three shipments had not been paid, PAC said it had not paid H&H;because Adams had not paid PAC. H&H;then sought payment directly from Adams because Adams had told H&H;that he would be personally responsible for meat purchased by Whataburger Mexico. Adams refused to pay the balance owed to H&H;
H&H;sued Adams on a sworn account and for breach of contract or promissory estoppel, common law fraud, and quantum meruit. After a bench trial, the court found in favor of H&H;and rendered judgment against Adams for $12,945.80, prejudgment interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum ($3,495.42), attorneys' fees in the amount of $11,000.00, and postjudgment interest at the rate of twelve percent per annum.
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
In his seventh issue, Adams contends the trial court erred by failing to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court signed the judgment on October 3, 1997. Adams timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law on October 17, 1997, and filed a timely notice of past-due findings on November 12, 1997. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 296, 297. The trial court did not file the requested findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Rules 296 and 297 impose a mandatory duty on the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law within thirty days of the date of judgment at the request of either party. Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes, 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989). The trial court erred by failing to make appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law.
We ordered the present appeal abated and directed the trial judge to make findings of f
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|