In this residential property contract case, the Court addressed whether “as-is” and disclaimer-of-reliance contractual  provisions contained in the closing documents barred the homebuyer’s claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practice Act (DTPA), even when the seller’s disclosure statement apparently misrepresented and omitted material information. Pogue v. Williamson, 01-17-00844-CV, 2020

Introduction. In the fraud case of Pettit*v. Tabor, Marilyn Eileen Pettit Tabor (Lyn) ‘conveyed her interest in the family farm to her brother, Robert York Pettit (Bob), based upon Bob’s promise to protect the property and to reconvey it to Lyn. However, when it came time for Bob to reconvey the farm

Introduction. Negligent misrepresentation and fraud can be viable alternative causes of action to a breach of contract claim, as shown by the recent Texas federal court case of Correct RX Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Cornerstone Automation Sys., L.L.C., 945 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2019). In this case, Plaintiff, Correct RX Pharmacy Services (“

Introduction. In Ivy v. Garcia, Buyer sued Sellers for fraudulently inducing Buyer into entering a contract and buying Sellers’ defective home. 03-18-00545-CV, 2019 WL 3756483 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 9, 2019, no pet. h.). Sellers filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the as-is clause in the purchase contact barred Buyer’s

Introduction. The Texas Supreme Court reversed a judgment rendered against IBM originally in the amount of $21 million because Lufkin Industries disclaimed its reliance upon IBM’s misrepresentations in the written contract between the parties. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp. v. Lufkin Indus., LLC, 573 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. 2019), reh’g denied (May 31, 2019).

Background