Lakeway Co. v. Leon Howard, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. B-8425,B-8425 |
| Citation | 585 S.W.2d 660 |
| Parties | LAKEWAY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. LEON HOWARD, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Mike Willatt, Austin, for petitioner.
Hooper, Robinson & Moeller, Malcolm Robinson, Austin, for respondent.
Leon Howard, Inc., (Howard) brought this suit against Lakeway Company to recover an amount allegedly due under a contract to perform architectural services in connection with the construction of a golf course. Howard claimed that Lakeway had agreed to pay it $23,000.00 for the architectural services and that $2,443.75 was still owing under that agreement. Lakeway claimed that it had agreed to pay only $18,000.00 for the services. As will be developed below, the main problem is the applicability of the parol evidence rule.
Trial was to the court. The trial court rendered judgment for Howard. It awarded Howard $2,433.75 for breach of contract and $815.00 in attorneys' fees. The court found that Lakeway and Howard had made a written agreement on October 23, 1969, whereby Lakeway would pay Howard $18,000.00 to design an eighteen-hole golf course. The court then found that "simultaneous with such written agreement" the parties made an oral agreement whereby Howard would be given a $5,000.00 discount for the purchase of some real estate from Lakeway. Finally, the trial court found that on or about January 27, 1972, the parties agreed to incorporate the $5,000.00 discount agreement on the purchase of the real estate into the architectural services agreement, thereby making the total consideration for the services $23,000.00.
The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. 578 S.W.2d 163. The court recited two rules of law as support for its judgment. The first was that parol evidence is admissible to contradict a recital of consideration in a written instrument. Jackson v. Hernandez, 155 Tex. 249, 285 S.W.2d 184 (1955). The second was that the parol evidence rule does not preclude enforcement of prior or contemporaneous agreements which are collateral to an integrated agreement and do not vary or contradict the terms of the agreement. Hubacek v. Ennis State Bank, 159 Tex. 166, 317 S.W.2d 30 (1958).
Neither of these two rules is applicable here. When the consideration expressed in a writing is contractual in nature, and is not simply a recital of consideration already performed, the parol evidence rule does apply. Reserve Life Insurance Co. v. Buford, 241 S.W.2d 973 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roland v. Flagstar Bank
...the modification is unenforceable unless it is also in writing. TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 26.02(a)(2); seeLakeway Co. v. Leon Howard, Inc., 585 S.W.2d 660, 662 (Tex. 1979); Gail v. Berry, 343 S.W.3d 520, 524 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2011, pet. denied). Neither party disputes that the Plan is ......
-
N. K. Parrish, Inc. v. Southwest Beef Industries Corp., 78-1041
...inadmissible to vary the terms of the written contract. Id. Recent Texas cases reaffirm this rule. See, e. g., Lakeway Co. v. Leon Howard, Inc., 585 S.W.2d 660, 662 (Tex.1979); Texas Export Development Corp. v. Schleder, 519 S.W.2d 134, 137 (Tex.Civ.App.1974, no writ). The investors urge th......
-
Swinnea v. Eri Consulting Engineers, Inc.
...in nature, and is not simply a recital of consideration already performed, the parol evidence rule applies. Lakeway Co. v. Leon Howard, Inc., 585 S.W.2d 660, 662 (Tex.1979). A previous or simultaneous agreement to alter the fee agreed upon in a written contract is in conflict with the writt......
-
Blackstone Med., Inc. v. Phx. Surgicals, L. L.C.
...pet.) (mem.op.). The parol evidence rule does not apply to agreements made subsequent to the written agreement. Lakeway Co. v. Leon Howard, Inc., 585 S.W.2d 660, 662 (Tex.1979) ; Garcia, 276 S.W.2d at 258 ; Sheffield, 2008 WL 190049, at *3 ; Digby v. Tex. Bank, 943 S.W.2d 914, 928 (Tex.App.......