 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Continental Electronics Corp. v. Eurotech Marketing LTD.8/20/2001
mised the full payment would be accomplished through increased commissions on other sales; (2) Kudurshian relied on the representation by choosing not to pursue his claim to the commission; (3) Faulkner, McDonald, and Russell, all officers of Continental, were informed of the representation and authorized payments accordingly; (4) Eurotech did not receive the full commission; (5) the representations by Faulkner, McDonald, and Russell were false when made or were made with the intention they would never be fulfilled; (6) Faulkner, McDonald, and Russell knew the representations were false when made; and (7) Kudurshian relied on the representations to his detriment in that he failed to pursue his rights under the agreement.
We conclude these pleadings allege language similar to that quoted in Formosa and allege a claim for fraudulent inducement of a contract. Thus, we conclude Formosa controls this case and DeLanney does not prevent Eurotech from asserting its fraud claim against cross-appellees.
Accordingly, the trial court improperly granted a directed verdict on Eurotech's fraud claim based solely on DeLanney. In reaching this conclusion, we do not address whether the elements of fraud were shown at trial because that issue was not presented to the trial court as a ground for directed verdict.
With respect to Eurotech's negligent misrepresentation claim, however, we reach a different result. The Formosa opinion's rejection of the independent injury requirement in fraudulent inducement claims does not extend to claims for negligent misrepresentation or negligent inducement. D.S.A., Inc. v. Hillsboro Indep. Sch. Dist., 973 S.W.2d 662, 663 (Tex. 1998). Accordingly, we conclude the directed verdict was proper on the negligent misrepresentation claim.
Finally, we address Eurotech's breach of contract claim regarding the Greek Navy sale with respect to Continental. Eurotech brings this as an alternate argument in the event we affirmed the directed verdict on his tort claims. It attempts to "incorporate by reference all arguments and evidence" presented in its response to cross-appellees' motion for summary judgment. The brief, however, offers no case law or discussion on any of those arguments, nor does it address all of the grounds presented on the contractual claims in the motion for directed verdict. Consequently, we conclude Eurotech has waived any complaint on the directed verdict on its breach of contract claims with respect to the Greek Navy sale. See Wolfe, 24 S.W.3d at 646 (issue not supported by legal authority is waived); McKelvy, 381 S.W.2d at 62 (failure to address all grounds raised in motion for directed verdict waives complaint).
In conclusion, we reverse the trial court's directed verdict on Eurotech's fraud claim in favor of cross-appellees Continental, Tech-Sym, McDonald, Russell, and Faulkner and remand for further proceedings. We affirm the trial court's judgment in all other respects.
Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47
Page 1 2 3 4 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|