### NUM BER 13-06- 0043 0-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
GEOD OM INION PET ROL EUM, INC. A ND A pp ellan ts, G E O D O M I N I O N P E T R O L E U M , A T E X AS GEN ERA L PA RT NER SHIP , v . BOO NE EXPL ORA

TION , INC ., A pp ellee. On ap pe al f rom th e 2 5th D istrict Co urt of L av aca Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez This is a cont ra ct dis pute betw een appel lan ts, Ge o d o m ini on Petrole um, Inc . and Geodomi nio n Pet ro leu m, a Tex as General Par tnershi p ( Geodomi nio n) , ent it ies i nv olv ed in exploring for o il an d gas in Sou th T exas, and app ellee, Boon e Exploration , Inc. (Boo ne),
a s eis micco ntract or
. The di sput e arose out o f a three- dimens ion al sei sm ic sur v ey ( theBoone a l so sue d T i m es l i c e Te c h n o l o g y , I n c. ( T i m esl i ce) , a com panyhi r ed b y G eodom i ni on t o de si gn, 1 coor di nat e, and m anage a sei sm i c sur v ey
. T i m esl i ce t ook bi ds f r om v ar i ous se i sm i c cont r act or s, i ncl udi ng Boone. G eodom i ni on a l so f i l ed a cr oss- act i on agai nst T i m esl i ce. H owev er , pr i ort o t r i al , t he co ur t r ender ed sum m ar y j udgm ent t hat Boone t ake no t hi ng a gai nstT i m esl i ce on Boone' s br each ofcont r act cl ai m
. And, d u r in g tr ia l, G e o d o m in io n a n d T im e s lic e s e tt le d w ith e a c h o th e r
. T h u s , T im e s lic e is n o t a p a r ty t o th is a p p e a l. A ls o , p r io rto tr ia l, th e tr ia l c o u r t s e v e r e d c la im s b y w h ic h G e o d o m in io n s o u g h t t o r e c o v e rf r o m B o o n e c e r ta in d a m a g e s G e o d o m i n i o n h a d p a i d to va rio u s l a n d o w n e rs w h o s e p ro p e rti e s w e re i n v o l v e d i n th e s h o o t. A c c o rd i n g to G e o d o m i n i o n , t h e l a n d o w n e r c l a i m s re m a i n p e n d i n g i n th e s e v e re d s u i t. 2 sh o o t ) on the North Vienn a Prosp ect in La v aca Cou nty, Texas. By tw o issues, Geodomi nio n as ser

ts that itter minat ed th e c ontractupon w hic h Boon e s ued and , t hus, the jur y sh oul d hav e aw arded no los t profits

. By a t hird i ss ue, G eodomi nio n c ontends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d i n g ra nti ng summar y jud g ment dis mis si ng i ts count ercl aim under the Tex as D ec ep ti v e Trad e Practi c es A c t ( D TPA )

. W e affi r m. I. Procedu ra l Back g ro und Boo ne b rou gh ts u it against Geo dom inion se eking to recover pay me nt for w ork per formed on the s hoot and c lai ming l ostprofits for not bei ng al lowed to fini sh the s hoot. Boone' s t heor ies of re cov er y i ncl uded breach of contract , promis sor y es toppel , and q uantum mer uit

. In respon se, Geod omini on f ile d a c ountercl aim all eg ing breach of cont ra ct, neg li g ence, v iol ati ons of the DTPA, and breac h of w ar ra nty

. Pr ior

to tr ial , Bo one 1
mov ed for par

ti al summar

y j udg ment on Geodomi nio n's neg li g ence and D TPA
co u n te rcl a im s u rgin g, a m o n g ot h e r th in gs, th a t t h e DT PAcla im fe ll with in th e "l a rge transacti ons" ex empti on, a n aff ir mati v e defense Boon e h a d pl eaded. See T EX
. B US
. & C O MM
. C OD E A NN
. § 17. 49( g ) (V er non Su pp. 2 008)

. The tr ial cou rtgra n te d Boone an int er loc utor

y su mmary

j udg ment and di smi ss ed Ge odomin ion 's neg li g e nce and D TPA claims.3

Trial on t he remaini ng cl aims , i ncl udi ng breach of contract , q uantum mer uit , promis sor

y es toppel , and breach of war ra nty , w as to a jur y . At the cl ose of ev ide nce, the tr ial co urt den ied Geod omini on's req uestfor t he s ubmis si on of a j ur y q uest ion that ask ed
w hether Geod omini on had g iv en " wr itten n oti ce of ter minat ion of the Ag re ements i n the Nov ember

30, 2004 l etter ." The ju ry found thatBoone and G e odomin ion ag re ed to the ter ms i n the co ntractand that Geodom in io n f a iled to c omply w it h the co ntract , w it hout excuse. Th e jury

also foun d tha t Boo ne d id not fail to com ply w ith the contract . Th e jury awarded Bo one $32 0,0 00 for work performe d an d $4 73, 344 for lost prof it s . It also
awa rd ed a ttorn ey's fees. Geodo min ion f iled a m otion to disregard w hich th e trial court deni ed and a moti on for new tr ial w hic h w as ov er ru led by op e ra ti on of l aw
. This appeal
ensue d. II. Ter minat ion of Ag re ement In i ts firs t i ss ue, G e o d o m in io n co ntends that , as a matter of law , i t t er minat ed th e cont ra ct throug h a N ov ember 30, 2004 l etter

to Boone, and b ecaus e i t t er minat ed th e ag re ement, no l ost profits shoul d hav e been aw arded to B oone. Geod omini on arg ues that the N ov ember

30 l etter

g av e Boon e not ic e of ter minat ion w hen i t s u g g est ed th at G e o d o mi n i o n wo u l d o n l y c o n t i n u e i t s re l a t i o nshi p w i t h B o o n e i f B o o n e a g re e d t o m o d i fy the c ontract

. It als o asser ts thatbecause thi s is an "at- w il l" cont ra ctu al rela ti onshi p, i t c an be te rmi nated at an y

ti me by ei ther par ty and one par

ty may , atany

ti me, offer the othe r par ty a c hoi ce to ag re e to modify the c ontractor to end t he rela ti onshi p. W e di sag re e and
are notpersuade d by

Geod ominio n 's r e liance on W .G. Petti gr ew Di str ib. C o. v . Bo rden, Inc. , 976 F . Su pp. 1 043, 1054 ( S.D . Tex . 199 6) , aff' d, 127 F.3d 34 (5th Cir. 1997 ).4

It is undi sput ed th at t he l ang uag e of the cont ra ct betw een G eodomi nio n and Boone
re q uired th ir

ty days w ri tten noti ce of the i ntentto ter minat e. The writ ten a g re ement t hat g ov er ned t he par

ti es' ri g hts and obl ig ati ons and ter minat ion of those ri g hts and obl ig ati ons
w as compos ed of two par ts. The first par

t was a mast er

ag re ement ( the B asi c Ag re ement) that address ed, i n par

t, ter minat ion

. The sec ond par t was Suppl emental Ag re ement N o. 2 ( the Suppl emental Ag re ement) that prov ide d the d etai led ter ms, condi ti ons and t echni cal
s p e c if ic a t io n s fo r B o o n e t o re c o rd se is m icd a t a o ve r 2 2

. 4 5 s qu a re m il e s in L a va c a Co u n ty. Article XV of th e Basic Agreem entprovi ded for a three -y ear term f rom the date of the last Sup p le m e n tal Ag re ement "un les s t er minat ed by ei ther par ty g iv ing the other

par ty thi rty (3 0) days w ri tten noti ce of inte nti on to ca ncel ." Geodomi nio n c lai ms t hat t he N ov ember 30 l etter

prov ide d ter minat ion no ti ce. How ev e r , o u r

re v i e w o f t h e l e t t e r

re v e a l s o n l y

t h a ti td i s c u s s e d G e o d o mi n i o n ' s c o n cer ns regarding the term s of th e S u pple me nta l Agreem ent ; Tim eslice T echn ology , Inc.'s (Ti mesl ic e) al leg ed l ack of author iz ati on to si g n the ag re ement on behal f of Geodomi nio n; and a sug g est ed pay ment amountthati t bel iev ed to be fai r. The l etter cl osed wit h the followi ng: "I sincerely hop e w e resolve this problem and both our co m p a nies can work tog ether i n J anuar

y 2005 to c omplet e thi s p ro ject und er

a mut ual ly

ag re eabl e c ontract ." W hile suggesting mod i fi c ation s, the letter did no t evi den ce term inatio n; w e the refore canno t c oncl ude t hat i ts lan g uag e g av e a t hir ty -d ay noti ce of ter minat ion as req uired by the Basi c Ag re ement. See Dows v. Nat 'l Exch. Bank

of Mi lwauk ee , 91 U. S. 6 18, 6 29 ( U. S. 1875) ( prov idi ng thatthe cons tr uct ion of the lang uag e i n the l etter i s i n the prov inc e of the
cour t, and doe s n ot c re ate a fact is sue to be deter mined by the j ur y ); El Pas o Natur

al Gas Co. v. Mi nco Oi l & Ga s , 8 S.W .3d 309 , 312 -16 (Te x . 199 9) (construing term inatio n lette rsG eodom i ni on i s a par t ner shi p, t he p r i nci pal s of whi ch ar e cor por at i ons o wned r espect i v el y byR i ck 2 G ei sl erand Ki nneySi m on. 5 as a m a tt e r o f

l aw ); see Exch. B ank & T ru st Co. v. Lone Star

Li fe Ins. C o. , 546 S.W .2d 948, 953 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–D all as 1977, no w ri t) ( conc lud ing thatbec ause a ques ti on of l eg al
cons tr uct ion i s a q uest ion of law for t he c our

t rather than a q uest ion of factfor t he j ur y , t he trial judge w as au t h o ri ze d to const rue the comm itme nt lett er on m otion for sum ma ry jud g ment)

. Mo re ov er , w hil e the Tex as cour ts hav e re cog niz ed th at on e par ty 's dec larati on of an i ntent ion to modify an a t- w il l cont ra ct cons ti tutes a de cl arati o n o f t h e opt ion to ter minat e, s eeL .G

. Ba lfo ur C o. v . Br own , 1 1 0 S

. W .2d 104 , 106 -07 (Te x . Civ . App .–Fo rt W orth 19 37, no w ri t) , w e cannot conc lud e that the letter gav e notic e of

ter minat ion on t hat basi s. Ev en w ere w e to ag re e tha t "at -w ill" a u th o rityappl ies , "[ t]o prov e not ic e, an employ er

as ser ti ng a modific ati on must prov e that he uneq uivocal ly noti fied th e empl oy ee of definit e c hang es in employ ment t er ms." Hatha wa y v. Gen . Mill s, Inc. , 711 S.W .2d 2 27, 229 ( Tex . 198 6)

. In t his ca se, Geod omini on di d notco ncl u sive ly prov e uneq uiv ocal noti ficat ion

. Geodomi nio n furt her

co ntends thatthe Nov ember 30 l etter , i n combi nati on w it h a Novembe r 11, 20 0 4 m e e t in g betw een it and Bo one , ef fecte d term inatio n. At trial, Rick Ge isl e r, a p rin cip a l o wne r in th is c a se , t e st i f i e d th a t, atth e No vem b e r 11 m e e ti n g, Geod o m in ion i nformed Bo one i t c oul d notl iv e under the Suppl emental Ag re ement. 2 Gei sl er al so tes ti fied th at Ti mesl ic e di d nothave t h e auth or ity to si g n the Suppl emental Ag re ement on Geod omini on's behal f. H ow ev er , t he j ur y found thatGeod omini on ag re ed to th e con tract, an d, for the p urpo ses of this app eal, Geo dom inion doe s n ot challen ge this findi ng
. Fi nal ly , G eis ler tes ti fied th at G eodomi nio n as ked Boone to mak e another offer on6

how it coul d compl ete the proje ct "and w e w oul d cons ide r it

. But w e w oul d n o t c o nti nue on unde r the c ur re nt way s t hat we hav e." K in n e y S im o n t e s t if ie d , " I t h in kwe m a d e itqu it e cl e a r .
. . [ a tt h e m e e t in g] t h a twe did not ag re e w it h the su ppl emental ag re ement, it s ter m s, did not feel boun d by that ag re ement; and as far a s we w ere concer ned, the ag re ement be tween us at that poi nt was ter minat ed." Ly nn Boo ne, t he ow ner of Boone Ex p lo ra ti o n , tes ti fied th at he felt "ambushed " at th e m e e ti n g. He f u rt h e r te st if ie d th a t "in th is m e e ti n g . . . , th e y ask e d m e if w e wo u ld go b a c kd o wn a n d [ c o m p le t e t h e sh o o t ] , a n d I sa id 'ye s , if we ca n wo rko u tt h i s m o n e y we
w il l. '" After

the meeti ng , Bo one s poke w ith M a rio n B o ne, t he ow ner of Timesl ic e, ex pla ini ng "ev en th oug h, y ou know , I – that w as all I w anted to do w as g et pa id and g et ou t of this deal

. And, y ou k now , I tol d Ma ri on, I sa id 'M ar ion , you k now , he did n'tev en k now t h e re wa s a d e a l. ' " B o o n e a ls o t e s t if ie d t h a t " n o o n e t e rm in a t e d o u r c o n t ra c t

. " Ad d it io n a ll y, on D ecember

1, 2004, in respon se to t he N ov ember 30 l etter , Bo one w ro te G eodomi nio n explaining that he felt "ca ught in the midd le of cost o ve r ru n s [ s ic ] on your job tha t w ere bey ond our

co ntrol. As reit erated numerous ti mes and sti pul ated in our co ntract , Bo one Ex plo ra ti on, I nc. had hired on a dayrate basi s w it h no product ion q uotas propose d." The letter cl osed by

sa y ing "[w]e joi n y ou w it h the hope that w e c an q uic kl y resol v e thi s matter and wor k t og ether

on future proje cts ." Con si der ing the ag re e m e n ts , t h e evid e n ce rega rd in g th e circ u m st ancessu rr oundi ng the d ra fting of the letter , and the cor re spond ence betw een t he par ti es, w e c oncl ude t hat the o n ly c o n st ructi on of the lan g uag e i n the N ov ember 30 l etter i s t hat i t di d notprov ide cont ra ctu al noti ce of ter minat ion

. Geodomi nio n uni lat erall y charact er iz es the ev ide nce ofH av i ng d et er m i ned t he l egal eff ect oft he N ov em ber30, 2004 l et t erw as t hat i t di d not , as a m at t er 3 ofl aw, t er m i nat e t he co nt r act , we ne ed n ot add r ess G eodom i ni on' s s econd i ssue wher e i t cont ends, al t er nat i v el y , t hat G eodom i ni on i s ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al because t he l et t er r ai sed an i ssue off act and t he t r i al c o u rt e rr e d i n re fu s i n g G e o d o m i n i o n 's re q u e s te d q u e s ti o n o n te rm i n a ti o n
. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47. 1. 7 an offer of modific ati on as proof th a t itprov ide d not ic e of ter minat ion of the a g re ement. W e reje ct Geodomi nio n's v iew of the e v ide nce. G eodomi nio n c oul d hav e ter minat ed pursuantto the t hir

ty -d ay cont ra ctu al noti ce per iod and re pla ced Boone, but itdi d notdo
so. Thus , w e conc lud e that the l eg al effectof the l etter es tabl is hed, as a matt er of law , t hat Geodomi nio n had not t er minat ed th e c ontract—th at G eodomin io n did notg iv e not ic e of ter minat ion w hen it sug g est ed that Geodomi nio n woul d onl y co nti nue i ts re lat ion shi p w it h Boo ne if Boon e agreed to m odif y t he Sup plem ent al Agreem ent

. Accordingly , w e overrule Geodomi nio n's first is sue. 3 III. DT PA Cou nte rclaim By i ts thi rd i ss ue, G eodomi nio n c ontends thatt h e tr ial co urt er re d i n g ra nti ng summar y j udg ment on it s D TPA co untercl aim becau se the D TPA's "l arg e transact ion"
ex empti on does not appl y . W e di sag re e.

A. Standa rd of Rev iew and Appl ic abl e Law "A defendant is enti tl ed to su mmary j udg ment on a n aff ir mati v e defense if the defendant c oncl usi v ely prov es all the ele m e n ts o f t he affirmat iv e defense. " East Hil l Ma ri ne, Inc. v. Rink

er Boat C o., Inc ., 229 S. W .3d 8 13, 8 15- 16 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 07, p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Rho ne- Poulenc, Inc . v . R am ir ez , 997 S.W .2d 217 , 223 (Te x. 199 9));
see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( b) , ( c) ; Ry lan d Gr oup, Inc . v

. Hood , 9 2 4 S

. W

. 2 d 1 2 0 , 1 2 1 (T e x. 199 6) (per curiam). Once the m ovant esta blishe s i t s r ight to summ aryjudgmen t as a matter of law , the burden shi fts to the nonmov ant to presentev ide nce that ra is es a g enui ne8

is sue of materi al fact, t hereby precl udi ng su mmary j u dg ment. See Pace v. Pa ce , 160 S

. W

. 3 d 70 6 , 7 1 4 (T e x. Ap p .– Da lla s 2 0 0 5 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Cit y o f Ho u s to n v

. Clea r Cr eek Basi n Aut h. , 589 S.W .2d 671 , 678 -79 (Te x . 197 9)). T h e p ro priety of su mm ary jud g ment is a q uest ion of l aw , and w e thus re v iew the tr ial cour t' s r uli ng de n ov o. Pr

ovi dent Lif e & Accide nt Ins. C o. v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211 , 215 (T ex. 2003 ); Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Bal len ger C onst. C o. , 230 S.W .3d 489 , 491 (Tex. A pp. –Corpu s Christi 200 7, no pet. ). "W hen rev iew ing a s ummary j udg ment, w e tak e as tr ue al l ev ide nce fav orabl e to the
nonmov ant, and w e i ndul g e ev er y reason abl e i nferenc e and re sol v e any doubt s i n the
nonmov ant' s fav or ." IH S C edars Treat m ent C tr . of D esoto, T

ex. , Inc. v. M

ason , 143 S.W .3d 794, 798 ( Tex . 200 4) ; Head v. U.S. Insp ect DFW , Inc. , 1 5 9 S

. W

. 3 d 7 3 1 , 7 3 9 (T e x. App .–Fo rt W orth 20 05, pet. den ied). Subs ect io n (g ) of sect ion 17.4 9 of the Tex as Busi ness and Commerce Cod e p ro vide s t h e fo llo wing: N ot hi ng in t his subc ha pt er s ha l l a pp l y

t o a c au s e of a c ti on a r i s i ng from a transacti on, a proje ct, or a s et of t ransacti ons re lat ing to the s ame proje ct, inv olv ing tot al cons ide ra ti on by the cons umer of more than $500,00 0, ot her than a c ause of acti on i nv olv ing a c onsumer's resi dence

. T EX
. B US
. & C O MM
. C OD E A NN
. § 17.49( g ) (V er non Supp. 2008)

. In other w ords, the bu s i ne s s a nd c om me rc e c od e ex em pt s from t he D TPA c au s es o f acti on a rising from a transacti on if the total cons ide ra ti on amounts to more than $500,00 0. East H il l Ma ri ne , 229 S.W .3d at 820 . "T he p urpo se of t his exempt ion is to ma intain the DT PA as a viable source of reli ef for cons umers in smal l transacti ons and to re mov e li ti g ati on betw een bus ine ss es ov er l arg e transacti ons from the sc ope of the DTPA. " Id. (cit in g Citi zens Nat 'l

Bank v. Al lenI n Space M aker D esi gns, I nc. v. W eldon F. St um p & C o. , t he f eder al cour t det er m i ned t hat St um p 4 was i nduced t o ent ert he cont r act byt he p r om i se of $51 9, 000 i n pa y m ent f ort he m anuf act ur i ng e qui pm ent i t w as t o d el i ver an d i ns t al l

. N o. 3:02 -C V -03 78 -H , 20 03 W L 2 1 4 1 4 7 2 6 , a t * 2 (N

. D

. T ex
. 20 03 ) ( m em
. op
. ). T he c ou rt e x pl ai ned t hat t he f act t hat t he a ct ual v al ue was $472, 500 due t o v ar i ous n on- per f or m ances by S tu m p d i d n o t c h a n g e th e va l u e o f c o n s i d e ra ti o n p ro m i s e d a t t h e ti m e o f c o n tr a c tin g
. I d. I t r easone d t hat
" appl y i ng a n e xa n te app r oach r at hert han an ex post o n e a l l o w s p a rti e s to a c o n tra c t t o k n o w w i th c e rta i n ty w h e th e r th e i r c o n tra c t w i l l fi t w i th i n th e c o v e ra g e o f th e D T P A ." I d. 9 RaeInv s., Inc ., 142 S. W .3d 4 59, 47 3 -7 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 04, n o pet .) ( op. o n reh'g)). B. W he th er

t he "L arg e Tran s acti on s " E x em pt i on B ars G eo do mi ni on ' s D TPA C l ai ms Cha ll eng ing t he "to tal co nsi derati on" l ang uag e of secti on 17. 49( g ), Geod omini on cont ends that the "t otal co nsi derati on" ati ss ue here di d notex ceed $500,00 0, t hus, the "large exemp tions" exception did not bar its DTP A claim. It arg ues th at th e ap proa ch this Cou rtsh oul d us e i n det er mini ng "tot al cons ide ra ti on" i s t he v alu e of co nsi derati on atthe ti me the cont ra ct w as made or i nduced

. See Space Maker Designs, In c. v. W eldo n F. Stum p & Co. , No. 3:02- CV -0 378- H, 2003 W L 21414726 at *2 (N .D

. Tex

. 2003) ( mem. op.) ( f i n d i n g , o n a m o t i o n i n l i m i n e c h a l l e n g e , t h a t i n d e t e r m i n i n g " t o t a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n " o f a transacti on, t he v alu e of the co n sid e ra ti on promis ed w hen t he c ontractw as ex ecut ed deter mines "tot al cons ide ra ti on" under secti on 17.49( g ) and not the a ctu al v alu e c onv ey ed in the c on t ract ). U nder

thi s a nal y si s, Geodomi nio n as ser ts that becau se the S uppl emental 4 Ag re ement was not a tur n- key co ntract and prov ide d onl y for a day -rate o f $24,500 w it hout
a n y p ro vis io n fo r t h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f d a ys t o b e wo rk e d , if

t h e sh o o tco u ld re a s o n a b ly h a ve been c omplet ed i n l ess than 21 day s, the "total cons ide ra ti on" w oul d not h av e ex ceede d $50 0 , 0 00 (no ting that $2 4,5 00 tim es 20 days eq uals $4 90, 000 ). Geodo min ion also cal cul ated "total c o n siderati on" to be i n the rang e of $421,0 00, n oti ng thati ts ex per t, C h a r l e s Me lt o n , st a t e d in h is a f f id a vit , t h a ta we ll -o rg a n ize d co n t ra c t o r s h o u ld h a veI n C i ti z ens Nat '

l Bank v. All en Rae I nvestm ents, I nc. , t h e F o rt W o rth C o u rt o f A p p e a l s , re fe rr i n g to 5

" consi der at i on" as used i n sect i on 1 7. 49( g) oft he T exas D ecept i v e T r ade Pr act i ces Act , set outt he f ol l owi ng:

U nd er T ex as ca s e l aw , " c on s i de rat i on i s a p res en t ex c ha ng e b arg ai ne d fo r i n return for a p ro m i s e
. It c o n s i s ts o f e i th e r a b e n e fit to th e p ro m i s s o r o r a d e tri m e n t t o th e p ro m i s e e ." R oar k v. Sti l w orth O i

l & G as, inc. , 8 1 3 S .W .2 d 4 9 2 , 4 9 6 (T e x . 1 9 9 1 ). S i m i l a rly , i n th e s i x th edi t i on o fBl ack' s Law D i ct i onar y , consi der at i on i s def i ned as " som e r i ght , i nt er est , pr of i t or benef i t accr ui ng t o one par t y , or som e f or bear ance, det r i m ent , l oss, orr esponsi bi l i t y , gi v en, s u ff e re d , o r u n d e rta k e n b y th e o th e r," . . . . B L A CK ' S L AW D I CT I ON A RY 30 6-0 7 ( 6th ed

. 19 90 ). 1 4 2 S .W .3 d 4 5 9 , 4 7 4 ( T e x . A p p .– F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t.) (o p . o n re h 'g ); see Nationw ide o f Fort W orth, I nc. v. W i gingt on , 945 S. W

. 2d 8 83, 883
- 85 ( T ex. App. –W ac o 19 97, wr i t di sm ' d w. o. j

. ) ( addr essi ng d ef i ni t i on o f "to ta l c o n s id e r a tio n to b e p a id " in d e te r m in in g is s u e o fw h e th e rth e tria l c o u r t e r r e d i n d e n yi n g N a tio n w id e 's m ot i on t o com pel ar bi t r at i on under an except i on pr ov i si on, sect i on 171. 001 oft he T exas G ener al Ar bi t r at i on A c t ). 10 av erag ed 80 to150 source poin ts a dayunder nor mal w eather

co ndi ti ons usi ng v ibrosi s a s an energ y

so urce. It based thi s a mount on the re cordin g of 2,578 v ibe s p oin ts as prov ide d for i n t h e S u p p l e me n t a l A g re e me n t a n d a n a v e ra g e d a i l y a c q u i s i t i o n ra t e o f 150 v ibe s poi nts —th e top end of M elt on's est imat e. Base d on thes e numbers, Geodomi nio n as ser ts that sev enteen day s o f recordin g ser v ic e w oul d hav e been foreseea ble at the t ime Boone
w as hired, a nd w it h the st ipu lat ed day-rate o f $24,500, cons ide ra ti o n woul d hav e been $421,00 0, well bel ow

the "larg e transacti on" ex empti on amount

. In res po ns e, B oo ne a s s er ts t ha t "t ot al c on s i de rat i on " i s notdet er mi ne d atthe t i me of contract ing , butrather is d eter mined by the detr imentGeod omini on s uffered. See Citi zens Nat 'l

Bank, 1 4 2 S. W .3 d a t 4 7 4 (pro vidi n g an an a lysis of th e op e ra ti o n of

th e "l a rge transa ction" ex em ption and conside ring the legi slative inte nt w ithou t app ly ing i ts ana ly sis). 5 Boone cont ends that, becau se there had bee n a d etr imentto Geodomi nio n i n ex ces s o f $500,00 0—Bo one had i nv oic ed Ge odomin ion ov er $800, 000, and G eodomi nio n had pai d,
e it h e r di re ct ly or t h ro u gh T im e sli ce , o ve r $5 0 0 ,0 0 0 of

th e in voic e d am o u n t—th e "l a rge11

transacti ons" ex empti on of the DTPA prev ented Ge o domini on from mai ntai nin g i ts count ercl aim. See i

d. In this case, howev er, w e nee d not decid e w hich approa ch shou ld be used be cause und er eithe r approa ch, th e evide n c e s u p ports a co nclusion thatthe exem ption app lies. Boone present ed th e foll ow ing ev ide nce that est abl is hes ra ng es for th e v alu e of "tota l
cons ide ra ti on" i n ex ces s o f $500,000 at t he ti me of indu cement :

• T he Su pple me n t a l Agreem entcov ered app rox ima tely 22. 45 square m iles of 3-D sei smi c a cq uis it ion

. It prov ide d a d ay rate o f $24,500 for re cordin g ac q uis it ion , but did not prov ide the number of day s t o be w or ked.

• Ma ri on Bon e tol d Ki nney Si mo n t hat t he g enerali z ed c ostfor a 3- D ov er the g enerali z ed areas for

the pr ior six m onths had been runni ng betw een $43 ,500 and $45,000 per

sq uare mi le all i ncl usi v e.

• Accordin g to Bo ne, prior to the executio n of the agreem ent , Boo ne p rov ided him w it h tur nkey

bi ds ra ng ing from $52 ,900 (l ess cer tai n eq uip ment charg es) to $6 6,150 per sq uare mi le, and Bone c ommunic ated thi s i nformati on to Si mon.

• In A pr il 20 04, S i mo n ex pe c te d th at , ac c ordi ng t o w ha t Bo ne w as t el l i ng h i m, Geodomi nio n s houl d budg et ap prox imat ely $38, 000 t o $39, 000 per sq uare mi le.

• Ri ck

Gei sl er tes ti fied athi s d eposi ti on that he ex pect ed 75 to 10 0 v ibe s p er day and that $24,500 per

day w as not o bje cti onabl e.

• Si mon es ti mated t hat t he ent ire c ostof the s hoot w oul d be around $7 50,000. Base d on infor mati on prov ide d to Si mon byBone, the exp ect ed rang e for the c ostof the shootw as betw een $97 6,575 and $1, 010,250 , t he tu rn key bi ds ra ng ed from $ 1,187, 605 to $1 ,485, 068, and Si mon's budg et ex pect ati ons co n si dered a ra ng e $853, 100 t o $87 5,5 50. Furthermo re, at Ge isler's ex pect ed 1 00 vibes p e r d a y, a ccording to Boo ne's calculat ion of

the ab ove informa tion, t he shoo t w ould h ave ta ken app rox ima tely tw ent y -six day s, ex cl usi v e of la you t, pick up, a nd w eather del ay s. At the u nobj ect ion abl e rate o f $24,500 per

day , a "total co nsi derati on" of $637, 000 woul d hav e resul ted.12

Fur ther more, i n ar ri v ing at it s $ 421,000 amount , Ge odomin ion uti li z ed onl y the upper most end of M elt on's rang e of 80 to 150 vi bes per

dayand did not factor

i n days for lay ing out and pi ck ing up eq uip ment, alt houg h the Suppl emental Ag re ement prov ide d tha t Boone w as to be pai d for that time. W hen apply ing the upper end of Mel ton' s e sti mate of
v ibes pe r day, w ith tw o da y s of lay outand tw o da y s of pickup, the result is an amo untin
ex ces s of

$ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0

. And, w it hout factor ing i n l ay out a nd pi ck up ti me, us ing the median of Melton's range, th e "to tal con siderat ion" would b e $59 1,2 05. T hus, these calculatio ns, based on M elt on's aff ida v itand Geodomi nio n's i nduce ment app ro ach, sup por t "t otal
cons ide ra ti on" i n ex ces s o f the $500, 000. Mo re ov er , reg ardin g the secon d a p proach, the follo w ing su mmary j udg ment
ev ide nce est abl is hes that there w as a det ri ment t o Geo domini on i n ex ces s o f $500,00 0—t he i nv oic ed amount s a nd th e amount s p aid ex ceede d $500, 000:

• Boone h a d i nv oic ed Ge odomin ion $836, 000 for ser v ic es re ndered unde r the cont ract prior to the hiring of the rep lacem entcontract or.

• Geodomi nio n, ei ther di re ctl y or throug h Times li ce, had paid $515, 998 of the inv oic ed amountbut re fused to pay the re maini ng $320, 000. The ev ide nce suppo rt s a findi ng of "t otal cons ide ra ti on" of more th a n $500, 000 under ei ther approach. Boone met it s ini ti al burden of c oncl usi v ely est abl is hin g that itw as enti tl ed to summar

y jud g ment on appe ll ant' s D TPA cl aims bec ause the l arg e transacti on ex empti on appl ied

. See East H il l Ma ri ne , 229 S.W .3d at 815-16. Mo re ov er , G eodomi nio n did not presentev ide nce that ra is ed a g enui ne is sue of mat er ial fact, thereby precl udi ng summar y judg ment. See Pace , 16 0 S. W .3 d a t 71 4

. T h e exe m p ti o n un d e r se ct io n 17 .4 9 (g) of the DT PA ap plies. Accordin gly , the trial court w as justif ied in granting summ ary13

jud g ment on appel lan t' s DTPA cl aims on the g ro unds that suc h c lai ms were bar re d under the l arg e transacti ons ex empti on of the DTPA. W e ov er ru le Geodomi nio n's thi rd i ss ue. IV. C oncl usi on The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s 1 4th d ay

of Aug ust , 200 8.