HOUSTON – A state appeals court recently declined to revive a breach of contract and negligence lawsuit against Houston used car lot that allegedly failed to make agreed repairs on a vehicle before its new owners took delivery.
In its six-page memorandum opinion issued Dec. 19, a Texas First District Court of Appeal three-judge panel affirmed a Harris County Civil Court at Law's ruling that granted a take-nothing judgment against appellants Diane Smith and John Fernandez and in favor of appellee Houston Direct Auto.
"Appellants alleged in their original petition that they purchased a car from appellee and that appellee agreed to make certain repairs to the car before delivery," Chief Justice Sherry Radack wrote. "Appellants alleged that appellee failed to make repairs as agreed. Appellants further alleged that the car was damaged while in appellee’s possession for repairs."
Justice Sarah Beth Landau and Justice Richard Hightower concurred in Radack's opinion.
Smith and Fernandez appealed the trial court's take-nothing judgment against them in their breach of contract and negligence lawsuit against Houston Direct Auto, a used car lot on Jeanetta Street in Houston.
In their original petition, Smith and Fernandez alleged Houston Direct failed "to make certain repairs" to a 2007 Mercedes S550, according to the background portion of the opinion.
Houston Direct denied the allegations and, in its answer filed in October of last year, said that Smith and Fernandez had purchased the vehicle "as is" and that they'd agreed to a notice of vehicle sold without any warranty.
The following December, the trial court sustained Houston Direct's objections, ruled that exclusion of Smith and Fernandez's evidence was mandatory under court rules of civil procedure and granted the take-nothing judgment.
Smith and Fernandez appealed.
"We liberally construe the complaints in appellants' pro se brief as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's judgment," Radack wrote.
To prevail in their breach-of-contract claim, Smith and Fernandez must establish there was a valid contract to repair the vehicle, that Houston Direct agreed to it but then breached the agreement and that damages resulted, Radack wrote.
Smith and Fernandez raised no objection at trial when the trail court excluded their repair receipts as evidence of a contract, according to the opinion.
"Even if the trial court considered the receipts attached to appellants' petition, there is no evidence in the record of other elements of appellants' breach-of-contract or negligence claims, such as the existence of a valid contract to provide repairs or a duty to repair," Radack wrote. "Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in rendering judgment that appellants take nothing on their claims. We overrule appellants' sole issue."