Traco vs Arrow
Case Name, Citation, and Court:
TRACO, INC., A THREE RIVERS ALUMINUM COMPANY, Appellant v. ARROW GLASS CO., INC., Appellee
Appeal No. 04-90-00382-CV
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, Fourth District, San Antonio
Key Facts
Traco Inc is an aluminum company that supplies pre-engineered aluminum and glass sliding doors and windows.
Arrow Glass Company is a subcontractor who initially brought suit against Traco on the theories of promissory estoppel and negligence for Traco’s failure to supply aluminum and glass sliding doors at the quoted price.
After a bench trial, the trial court held for Arrow solely under the theory of promissory estoppel and awarded Arrow judgment against Traco for damages in the amount of $ 75,843.38, plus attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest.
Issue
Appellant supplier sought review of a judgment from the 45th District Court of Bexar County (Texas), awarding appellee subcontractor damages, plus attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, in an action brought for promissory estoppel and negligence for appellant's failure to supply glass doors at the quoted price.
Rule
The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court in favor of appellee subcontractor, finding that promissory estoppel was a viable cause of action in a bid construction case. The court found that the award of damages based on this theory was factually supported by the evidence, and that there was statutory authority for the award of attorneys' fees. The determination of the rate of prejudgment interest also was proper.
Analysis
Appellant initially argues that the trial court erred in rendering judgment for Arrow because Traco's bid was revocable and properly withdrawn thirty days after it was made.
Appellant primarily relies upon the argument that its sliding doors are goods as defined by the Texas Business and Commerce Code, therefore, § 2.205 of this code is controlling.
Nevertheless, appellant's arguments ignore the appellee's basic contention and legal theory
TRACO, INC., A THREE RIVERS ALUMINUM COMPANY, Appellant v. ARROW GLASS CO., INC., Appellee
Appeal No. 04-90-00382-CV
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, Fourth District, San Antonio
Key Facts
Traco Inc is an aluminum company that supplies pre-engineered aluminum and glass sliding doors and windows.
Arrow Glass Company is a subcontractor who initially brought suit against Traco on the theories of promissory estoppel and negligence for Traco’s failure to supply aluminum and glass sliding doors at the quoted price.
After a bench trial, the trial court held for Arrow solely under the theory of promissory estoppel and awarded Arrow judgment against Traco for damages in the amount of $ 75,843.38, plus attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest.
Issue
Appellant supplier sought review of a judgment from the 45th District Court of Bexar County (Texas), awarding appellee subcontractor damages, plus attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, in an action brought for promissory estoppel and negligence for appellant's failure to supply glass doors at the quoted price.
Rule
The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court in favor of appellee subcontractor, finding that promissory estoppel was a viable cause of action in a bid construction case. The court found that the award of damages based on this theory was factually supported by the evidence, and that there was statutory authority for the award of attorneys' fees. The determination of the rate of prejudgment interest also was proper.
Analysis
Appellant initially argues that the trial court erred in rendering judgment for Arrow because Traco's bid was revocable and properly withdrawn thirty days after it was made.
Appellant primarily relies upon the argument that its sliding doors are goods as defined by the Texas Business and Commerce Code, therefore, § 2.205 of this code is controlling.
Nevertheless, appellant's arguments ignore the appellee's basic contention and legal theory