Watel v. Richman, B-7673
| Decision Date | 01 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. B-7673,B-7673 |
| Citation | Watel v. Richman, 576 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. 1978) |
| Parties | Buddy WATEL, Petitioner, v. Victor RICHMAN and wife, Marion Richman, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Hoppenstein & Prager, Ronald L. McKinney, Dallas, for petitioner.
Calvin A. Barker, Jr., Dallas, for respondents.
This is a summary judgment case. The court of civil appeals correctly reversed and remanded for new trial. 565 S.W.2d 101. There are disputed issues of fact to be tried. Our action should not be interpreted, however, as approving the holding by the court of civil appeals that an express written warranty may not limit or exclude the implied warranties described in Humber v. Morton, 426 S.W.2d 554 (Tex.1968). We express no opinion on that question.
The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
19 cases
-
J. Stiles, Inc. v. Evans
...maintains that Humber provides for two separate warranties. He relies upon the use of the plural form "warranties" in Watel v. Richman, 576 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.1978), in which the supreme court referred to "the implied warranties described in Humber...." Id. at 780. We disagree. The court in Wa......
-
Riverfront Lofts Condo. v. Milwaukee/Riverfront
...v. St. Joseph's Hosp., Inc., 147 Ga.App. 595, 249 S.E.2d 642 (1978); Richman v. Watel, 565 S.W.2d 101 (Tex.Civ.App.1978), aff'd, 576 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.1978) (expressly declining to reach the issue)); accord Hennes Erecting Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 813 F.2d 1074, 1081 (10th Cir.1987);......
-
G-W-L, Inc. v. Robichaux
...is sufficient to exclude the implied warranty of fitness created in Humber v. Morton, supra. This question was reserved in Watel v. Richman, 576 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.1978), and has not been addressed by this Court. The court of appeals stated that the language waiving the implied warranty must b......
-
Vaughn Bldg. Corp. v. Austin Co.
...type roof" and by evidence that Vaughn chose not to pay the premium for a bond to insure the roof. Austin also cites Watel v. Richman, 576 S.W.2d 779 (Tex.1978), in which the supreme court declined to approve the holding in Richman v. Watel, 565 S.W.2d 101, 102 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1978, writ......
Get Started for Free