Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 March 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. C-8813,C-8813 |
| Citation | 786 S.W.2d 670 |
| Parties | David M. BEST II, Petitioner, v. RYAN AUTO GROUP, INC. d/b/a Ryan Oldsmobile, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
David F. Brown and Gregory N. Woods, Dallas, for petitioner.
J. Shelby Sharpe, Fort Worth, for respondents.
The opinion and judgment of November 22, 1989 are withdrawn, and the following is substituted therefor.
This case involves the issue of whether there was any evidence at trial to support specific jury findings regarding violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Tex.Bus. & Com.Code §§ 17.41-17.63.
Respondent Ryan Oldsmobile sold petitioner David Best an existing Harley-Davidson Motorcycle "dealership" for $100,000, including an inventory of motorcycles subject to a lien securing International Telephone & Telegraph Diversified Credit Corporation, which had "floorplanned" the Ryan dealership. After Best took possession of the dealership, ITT sued Ryan and repossessed the motorcycles. Because Best's purchase of the "dealership" did not include the ability to purchase more inventory from Harley-Davidson, he was effectively out of business. Best then sued Ryan for, among other things, violation of DTPA § 17.46(b)(12).
The jury found that Ryan misrepresented the contract conveying the dealership, and that the misrepresentation was knowingly made and the producing cause of damage to Best. The jury also found that $79,500 would compensate Best for damages for additional net profit, which he would have made but for the misrepresentation, and awarded him exemplary damages of $15,700. The trial court set aside these jury findings, however, and rendered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Ryan. The court of appeals affirmed "because the evidence of damages contained in the record is of damages that resulted because of ITT's sequestration of the motorcycles and there is no evidence to tie those damages to ... a misrepresentation of the contract." 768 S.W.2d 956, 957.
A trial court may render judgment n.o.v. if there is no evidence to support one or more jury findings on issues necessary to liability. Tex.R.Civ.P. 301. In determining a "no evidence" question, however, a court must consider only that evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom that tend to support the jury findings, disregarding all contrary evidence and inferences. King v. Bauer, 688 S.W.2d 845 (Tex.1985). Here, as the court of appeals conceded, there is evidence ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Heritage Resources, Inc.
...v. Farah Mfg. Co., Inc., 678 S.W.2d 661, 669 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1984, writ dism'd by agr.) (directed verdicts); Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 670, 671 (Tex.1990)(judgment n.o.v.); Kraus v. Alamo Nat'l Bank of San Antonio, 586 S.W.2d 202, 208 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1979), aff'd and ......
-
Paxton v. City of Dall.
...102 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex.2003) (per curiam); Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex.1990) ; Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 670, 671 (Tex.1990) (per curiam); Navarette v. Temple Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Tex.1986) ; Tomlinson v. Jones, 677 S.W.2d 490, 4......
-
City of Keller v. Wilson
...102 S.W.3d 706, 709 (Tex.2003) (per curiam); Mancorp, Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex.1990); Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 670, 671 (Tex.1990) (per curiam); Navarette v. Temple Indep. Sch. Dist., 706 S.W.2d 308, 309 (Tex.1986); Tomlinson v. Jones, 677 S.W.2d 490, 492......
-
Farooqi v. Carroll (In re Carroll)
...misrepresentations concerning the terms of a written contract are actionable under the DTPA. See, e.g., Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 670, 671–72 (Tex.1990). The Court also found, in the context of analyzing Farooqi's fraudulent inducement claim, that Farooqi actually and justif......
-
Table of Cases
..., 38 Tex. 458 (1873), §1.02.15 Bentwich v. Franklin and Galveston City Co. , 38 Tex. 473, §1.02.15 Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc. , 786 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1990), §10.25 Big H Auto Auction, Inc. v. Saenz Motors , 665 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1984), §1.02.5 Birchfield v. Texarkana Memorial Hospital , 74......
-
Trial: Part Two Court's Charge to Judgment
...is no evidence to support it or if the evidence established the fact to the contrary as a matter of law. Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc. , 786 S.W. 2d 670, 671 (Tex. 1990). And specifically, when evidence of attorney’s fees is admitted without objection, cross-examination or evidence to the c......
-
Appendix - Desk Book
...1988). The dis sent in this case argues that the evidence does not support a finding of producing cause. Best v. Ryan Auto Group, Inc., 786 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1990) ( per curiam ). Best purchased a Harley-Davidson motor cycle dealer ship. The purchase included the inven tory that was subject ......