Santos v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Company, MID-CONTINENT
| Citation | 471 S.W.2d 568 |
| Decision Date | 06 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. B--2838,MID-CONTINENT,B--2838 |
| Parties | Santiago SANTOS, d/b/a La Frontera Grocery, Petitioner, v.REFRIGERATOR COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Hardy & Sharpe, Thomas G. Sharpe, Jr., Brownsville, for petitioner.
Cox, Wilson, Duncan & Black, John W. Black, Brownsville, for respondent.
Plaintiff Mid-Continent Refrigerator Company brought this suit for damages as a result of defendant Santiago Santos' default of a contract by which refrigeration equipment was leased to Santos. A summary judgment was entered for Refrigerator Company. The court of civil appeals affirmed, but its opinion states that Santos resisted the motion for summary judgment with an affidavit setting forth a fraudulent misrepresentation by Refrigerator Company's agent as to a particular provision of the contract between them. 469 S.W.2d 24, 25. The court then holds that evidence of the agreement contrary to the writing would have no effect because of the parol evidence rule.
The parol evidence rule will not prevent proof of fraud or mutual mistake. However, Santos presented no affidavit which raised this issue. The quotation in the opinion of the court of civil appeals is taken from an unverified pleading. Fraud or mutual mistake are affirmative defenses and must be raised by proper summary judgment proof by the one resisting the summary judgment. Gulf, Colorado & Sante Fe Ry. Co. v. McBride, 159 Tex. 442, 322 S.W.2d 492 (1958).
The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Glash
...672 S.W.2d 230 (Tex.1984). The parol evidence rule does not bar extrinsic proof of mutual mistake. Santos v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Co., 471 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.1971) (per curiam). The law of mutual mistake does not, of course, preclude a person from intentionally assuming the risk of ......
-
Shenandoah Associates v. J & K Properties, Inc.
...Parol evidence is admissible to show the true terms of a contract when mutual mistake or fraud is at issue; Santos v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Co., 471 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.1971); Alkas v. United Savings Association, 672 S.W.2d 852, 858 In its sixth point of error Shenandoah complains tha......
-
Swanson v. Schlumberger Technology Corp.
...that the parol evidence and the doctrine of merger are not bars to claims for fraud, accident, or mistake. See Santos v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Co., 471 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.1971); Commercial Bank, Uninc., of Mason v. Satterwhite, 413 S.W.2d 905, 909 Schlumberger's contention is that the rul......
-
Kneip v. Unitedbank-Victoria
...note that the parol evidence rule will not prevent proof of fraud which induced the execution of a contract. Santos v. Mid-Continent Refigerator Co., 471 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex.1971); Allen v. Boatwright, 618 S.W.2d 856, 863 (Tex.App.--Waco 1981, no ...
-
Chapter 3-2 Suit for Rescission
...2008, pet. denied) (describing a Suit for Rescission as an equitable remedy).[149] Santos v. Mid-Continent Refrigerator Co., 471 S.W.2d 568, 569 (Tex....