### NUM BER 13-09- 0024 3-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 OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
DA VID LL OYD ESA U, A pp ellan t,
v. CA RL OS V ILL A RR EA L, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 9 2n d Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es Y añ ez a n d G arza

M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza W e w i t h d ra w

our memorandum opi nio n and jud g ment of Ju ly 8, 2010, and s ubst it ute the fol low ing i n i ts pla ce. Appe l l a n t , D a v i d L l o y d E s a u , a p p e a l s a n o rd e r t o s p e c i fi c a l l y p e r fo r m on a re al
e s t a t e c o n t ra c t

. E s a u p re s e n t s si x is s u e s fo r r e vie w, wh ic h we re n u m b e r a n d re o rg a n izeEs au pres en t ed t he fol l ow i ng i s s ue s i n h i s bri ef: 1 1. T he t r i al cour t er r ed i n en t er i ng j udgm ent f or Vi l l ar r eal b ec ause, due t o f act or s bey ond Esau’ s cont r ol , he coul d no t del i v er a com m i t m ent f or t he t i t l e po l i cy wi t h r egar d t o on e of t he l o ts , a n d u n d e r p a rt 1 5 o f th e F a r m a n d R a n c h C o n tra c t, V i l l a rr e a l ’ s o n l y re m e d i e s w e re to e x te n d th e tim e f o r E s a u to p e r f o r m b y u p to 1 5 d a ys o r te r m in a te th e c o n t r a c t a s h is “ s o le re m e d y .” 2. Vi l l ar r eal was no t ent i t l ed t o spe ci f i c per f or m ance because t her e was n o ev i dence t o sho w th a t h e w a s re a d y , w i l l i n g , a n d a b l e to ti m e l y p e rf o rm h is o b lig a ti o n s u n d e r th e c o n tra c t. V i l l a rr e a l d i d n o t p e rf o rm h i s o b l i g a ti o n s u n d e r th e c o n tra c t, o r s h o w th a t h e h a d n o a d e q u a te r em ed y a t l aw
. 3. Vi l l ar r eal was no t ent i t l ed t o spe ci f i c per form ance because Esau t i m el y cance l l ed t he c o n tra c t. 4. Vi l l ar r eal was not e nti t l ed t o spe ci f i c per f or m ance because t he co nt r act t er m i nat ed pur suant t o i t s t er m s. 5. Vi l l ar r eal was not ent i t l ed t o speci f i c per f or m ance because he aband oned t he co nt r act by re fu s i n g to ti m e l y p e rf o rm i t. 6

. T h e C o u rt e rr e d b y fa i l i n g to re n d e r ju d g m e n t t h a t p la in tif f t a k e n o th i n g a n d b y fa i l i n g to awar d t o Esau h i s r easona bl e an d ne cessar y at t or ney [ ‘ s] f ees. W e c o n s i d e r i s s u e s tw o th ro u g h fi v e to g e th e r b e c a u s e th e y a l l d e a l w i th th e i s s u e o f s p e c i fic p e rf o rm a n c e
. 2 as three, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1, arg uin g that the tr ial cour t er re d w hen: ( 1) i t fail ed to 1 recogniz e tha t app ellee, Carlos Villarreal’s, rem edie s for a def ault u nde r the cont ract did not inc lud e spec ific per formance; (2 ) it deter mined that Vi ll ar re al w as “ready , w il li ng , and able ” to timely perfo rm h is o b li gations un der the contract , thu s entitling him to specif ic p e r fo r m a n c e ; a n d ( 3 ) i td e n i e d E s a u h i s re a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a r y a t t o r n e y ’ s fe e s
. W e
re v erse and remand. I. B A CKGRO UND Esau purpo rtedly had clear title to l o t s 16, 17 , 40, and 41 in Sem inary Heights, Hidalgo Count y , Te x as. On Ap ril 4, 2005 , Esau and Villarreal signed a “Farm an d Ranch Con tract ” w herein Es au ag re ed to se ll and Vil lar re al ag re ed to buy thes e l ots for $ 220,000

. T he closin g dat e for the co ntractw as July 22, 200 5, and time w as of the essen ce be cause Vi ll ar re al coul d onl y av ail hims elf of a fav orabl e federa l tax prov is ion i f the s ale oc cur re dT h e p ro v i s i o n a t i s s u e a l l o w s o n e to d e fe r c a p i ta l g a i n s ta x e s i f t h e s a l e o f o n e p ro p e rty i s u s e d to 2 p u r c h a s e a n o th e r “li k e k i n d ” p ro p e rty fo r i n v e s tm e n t o r b u s i n e s s p u rp o s e s
. See 2 6 U. S. C. § 1031. T he pr oper t y t o be exchang ed m ust be i dent i f i ed wi t hi n f or t y - f i v e da y s of t he i ni t i al sal e an d r ecei v ed wi t hi n on e h u n d re d e i g h ty d a y s
. Id

. 3 at or around t his ti me. 2 Si g nific antl y , t he c ontracti ncl uded t he foll ow ing defaultprov is ion : DE FAU LT: I f Buy er

fail s t o c omply

w it h thi s c ontract , Bu y er w il l be i n default , and Se ll er

may ( a) enfo rce sp eci fic p er formance, se ek suc h oth er reli ef as m a y b e p ro vid e d b y la w, o r b o t h , o r ( b ) t e r m in a t e t h is co n t ra c ta n d re c e ive the e ar nestmoney

as l iq uid ated damag es, thereby rele a sing bo th pa rt ies f rom th is contract. If, due to facto rs beyond Seller’s cont rol, Seller fails w ithin the t ime all ow ed to make any non- cas ual ty

repai rs or

del iv e r the C om mi tm en t, o r

s ur v ey , i f r eq ui r ed o f Se l l er , Bu y er ma y ( a) e xte nd t he t i me for per formance up to 15 d ay s a nd th e C los ing D ate w ill b e e xtended as neces sar

y or ( b) ter minat e thi s c ontractas the sol e re medy and re cei v e the ear nestmoney
. If Sel ler fail s t o c omply

w it h thi s c o n tr a ct f o r any othe r re a s o n , S eller w ill be in de fault a nd Bu y er ma y (a) enforce spe cif ic per formance, se ek suc h oth er reli ef as may be prov ide d by l aw , or both , or (b ) ter minat e thi s c ontractand re cei v e the earnes t money , t hereby rele asi ng both par ti es from thi s c ontract

. T he “Com mitm ent ” referred to the followi ng: “ W ithin 20 days af ter the Title Compan y

recei v es a c opy

of thi s c ontract , Se ll er shal l furni sh to B uy er a c ommitmentfor ti tle i nsurance (C ommitment ). ” Ac cordin g ly , after si g nin g the cont ra ct, the par ti es submi tted the c ontractto Ed wards Abs tract& Ti tl e C ompany ( “E dw ards Abst ra ct” ) for further handl ing

. Vi ll ar re al al so tendered $2,500 in earne st money to Edw ards Abst ra ct,
w hic h w oul d be credi ted t ow ards the p ur chas e pr ic e. On or ab outMay

15, 20 05, Edwards Abstract informe d Esau and Villarreal that th eir
resea rch rev eale d tha t a “w ild dee d” existed on lot 16. Duri ng trial, an Edwards Abstract
em ployee explained thata “w ild dee d is a dee d tha t has be en f iled of record by individuals that do nothave record ow nershi p on the p ro per ty .” The t it le company repor ted t hat Casimir J. Staszcuk and Adele Staszcuk convey ed a special w arranty dee d w ith a vendor’sEsau ha d t o f i l e an ot her l awsui t t o obt ai n cl ear t i t l e t o Lot 16. T he r ecor d r ev eal ed t hat , on O ct ober 3 31, 200 7, t he p r esi di ng j udge oft he 2 06t h Jud i ci al D i st r i ct C our t of H i dal go C ount y , T exas r ul ed t hat “ nei t her C a s i m i r J . S ta s zc u k o r A d e l e S ta s zc u k h a d a n y i n te re s t i n s a i d l o t 1 6 w h e n t h e y s i g n e d a s p e c i a l w a rr a n ty deed wi t h Vendo r ’ s Li en t hat was t hen r ecor ded underC l er k ’ s Fi l e No. 4707 23 , O ffi c i al R ecor ds, H i dal go C ount y , T exas whi ch pu r por t ed t o con v ey sai d l ot 16 t o def endan t Jose Ant oni o G ar ci a. ” Vi l l ar r eal had al r eady f i l ed t he u nder l y i ng l awsui t f or speci f i c per f or m ance when t i t l e was f i nal l y cl ear ed o n Lo t 16. 4 lien to Jose Anto nio Garcia on Lot 16, w hich w as recorde d in the Hidalgo County C lerk’s records. Esa u test if ied th at th is w as the f irst time he learned abo ut th is purporte d claim and w il d deed on Lot16. Due to thi s u nex pect ed i ss ue, E sau and Vi ll ar re al extended the c los ing date on th e cont ra ct from Ju ly

22, 2005 t o September 27, 2005. D ur ing thi s t ime, Es au l ear ned t hat the re cordin g from the Stas z cuk s to Garci a w as a mis tak e and proceed ed to tr y to cl ear the ti tl e
. Th e m ist a ke , h o wever, w a s n o t c o rre ct e d pri o r to th e exte n d e d de a d lin e fo r clo sin g. 3 On S eptember

27, 2005, Esau ’s real tor se nt a let ter

to Vi ll ar re al’ s real tor

ac know led g ing the w il d deed on Lot 16 and indi cat ing that Esau w oul d not be abl e to del iv er clear ti tl e on time . Th e lette r ad v ised tha t Esau was “can celling” the co ntracta nd enclo sed a “Release of Earne st Money” form auth oriz in g E d wa rd s Abstractto release Villarreal’s earnest money
. The le tter

also encl osed a $250 checkVil lar re al had tendered for an “opt ion not to pu rc hase” cl ause. Cou nsel for V il lar real re spond ed on Oct ober 25, 2005 w it h the foll ow ing
cor re spond ence: Dea r Mr . Es au: E n c lo s e d h e re in is yo u r c h e c kn u m b e r 3 8 2 8 in t h e a m o u n to f T wo Hun dr ed Fi ftyand 00/100t hs ($ 250.00) D oll ar [s ic ]. This ch eck

w il l not b e c ashed becau se w e bel iev e the co ntracti s s ti ll i n effect , and hav e proceed ed to f ile a law suit [sic] against y ou. If you shou ld have any q uest ions, p lease cont actour

off ic e at y our

ear li estco nv eni ence.5

Vi ll ar re al subs eq uentl y fil ed th e under ly ing l aw sui t for spec ificper formance. The trial court ruled in favor of Villarreal, a nd Esa u f iled this ap pea l. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW “W hen t he tr ial co urt ac ts as a f act [- ]finder , its f ind ing s are re v iew ed unde r leg al and factu al suf

f iciency stan dard s.” In r e D oe , 19 S. W .3 d 24 9 , 2 5 3 (T e x. 20 0 0 ). If no f in d in gs of factare fil ed or

req uest ed, a s in thi s c ase, the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment nec ess ar il y i mpli es all f in d in gs o f

fact t o s uppor

t i t. Scho effler

v. D enton, 8 1 3 S

. W

. 2 d 7 4 2 , 7 4 5 (T e x. Ap p .– Ho u st o n [14t h D is t.] 1991, no w ri t) ; see IK B Ind us. v. Pro-Lin e Corp ., 938 S. W .2d 440 , 445 (T e x. 1 997 ). “ T he trial judge’s decision can be sustain ed o n an y reason able theor y thati s c onsi ste nt w it h the ev ide nce a n d t h e a p p li cabl e l aw , c onsi der ing onl y the
ev ide nce fav or abl e to the d eci si on.” Au sti n Ar ea T eache rs F ed. Cre dit

U nio n v . F ir st City Bank —N W H il ls, N.A. , 8 2 5 S

. W .2d 795 , 801 (Tex. App. –Au stin 19 92, w rit denied ); Brodh ead

v. Dodgin , 824 S.W .2d 6 16, 6 20 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1991, w ri t den ied ). T o prevail, the ap pellan t ma y show tha t the und ispute d evidence negate s at least
one of the essen tial elem ent s of the cau se of

action , or he m ay show that the app ellee’s ple adi ng s lac k one or more of t he ele ments ess enti al to t he c ause of acti on and that the tr ial co urt w as li mite d to the p lea din g s. Br odhead , 824 S.W .2d a t 620 ; Fr ankl in v. Don oho , 774 S. W .2d 3 08, 3 11 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1989, no w ri t)

. How ev er , “[i ]f there is ev ide nce to suppo rtthe impl ied findi ng of fact, t he appe ll ate cou rt m u st u phol d the j udg ment on any the oryof law app licable to the case .” Gi angr oss o v. Cro sley , 8 4 0 S

. W

. 2 d 7 6 5 , 7 6 9 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 92, no w rit).6 III
. D I S CUS S I ON A
. Th e B uyer’s R emed ies Es au c on te nd s t ha t Vi l l ar r ea l ’ s rem ed i es w ere l i mi te d to e i th er a n exte ns i on o f t i me t o p e rfo rm t h e co n t ra c to r t o t e rm in a t io n o f t h e c o n t r a c t b e c a u s e E s a u co u ld n o th a ve know n aboutthe w il d deed. He arg ues that the ex is tenc e of the w il d deed w as an ev ent “comp letely out of

his control” and thu s asserts that the followi ng prov ision f rom th e Default Cl ause appl ies : If, due to fac tor

s b eyond

Sel ler ’ s c ontr ol , Se ll er fail s w it hin the ti me al low ed to m ake a ny non -casua lty repa irs or deliver the Comm itme nt, o r surv ey, i f re q uired of Sel ler , Bu y er may (a) ex tend the time for performanc e up to 15 day s a nd th e C losin g D a te w il l be extended as neces sar y or ( b) ter minat e thi s c ontractas the sol e remedy and re cei v e the ear nestmoney
. (E mphasi s a dded.) T h e t r i a l c o u rtru le d o t h e rwi s e a n d , u n d e r t h e a p p li c a b le st a n d a rd o f re vie w, we pr esume that the t ri al cour t found facts su ppor

ti ng the jud g ment. Br

odhead , 824 S.W .2d 619 -20 (“W here

. . . the record contain s no spe cif ic fin dings of fact. . . th e ap pellat e cou rt is bound to presume the t ri al jud g e found ev er y is suabl e factual proposi ti on nec ess ar y to
su st a in hi s ju d gm e n t .

. . . ”) (qu o ti n g Franklin , 774 S.W .2d at 311 ). W e note that Esau testi fied th at he has tw enty -fiv e y ears o f ex per ien ce sel li ng and purch asing prope rty . He also testif ied th at he owned Lot 16, the prop erty at issue , since 1986. F urther , und er

cross -e x aminat ion , Es au ac know led g ed th at Lot 16 had bee n l is ted for s ale for a t l east200 day s. T h e f or eg oin g ev ide nce suppo rt s t he not ion thatEs au had the e x per ien ce, know led g e, an d ti me to dis cov er the w il d deed on Lot 16 pr ior to it s off er for sal e. The tr ial7

court, base d up on th is evidence, imp licitly ruled that the w ild dee d on Lot 16 w as the refore
a ma tter w ithin Esa u’s cont rol. W hen Esau failed to com ply w ith the contract , his def ault enti tl ed Vi ll ar re al to s peci fic p er formance under

the follo w ing co ntract ual prov is ion : “I f Sel ler fail s t o c omply

w it h thi s c ontractfor a ny o th e r re a so n, S ell er w il l be i n defaultand Buy er may ( a) enforc e s peci fic p er formance, se ek suc h other r eli ef as maybe p ro v ide d by law , or both , or

( b) ter minat e thi s c ontracta nd recei v e the ear nestmoney , t hereby releasin g bot h pa rties f rom th is contract. ” Beca use there i s e v ide nce to s uppor t t he i mpli ed findi ng of

f actthat the w il d deed
w as a m atte r w ithin Esa u’s cont rol, w e uph old the trial court’s r uling reg arding Villarreal’s
av ail abl e remedie s a nd ov er ru le Esau ’s first is sue. B. Spe cif ic P erfor man ce A par ty se eki ng sp eci fic p er

formance must plead and prov e: (1 ) compl ian ce w it h the contract , includin g ten der of performa nce unle ss e x cused b y t he d efend ant 's breach
or re pud iation ; and (2) the rea dine ss, w illing ness, a nd ability to pe rform a t relevant time s. Di Giusepp e v

. Lawler , 269 S.W .3d 5 88, 5 93- 94, 6 01 ( Tex . 200 8) ; see a lso Gar Gil, L.L.C.
v. Bens on , N o. 13 -0 8- 00432- CV , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4 844, at * 9 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti June 25, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op. ). In add ressing a party' s readine ss, w illing ness, and abi li ty

to per form, Tex as cour

ts hav e recog niz ed th at "’ [t] he doc tr ine i s fundamenta l t h a ta p a rt ys e e k i n g t h e r e m e d y o f sp e c if icp e rfo rm a n c e
. . . m u s tsh o w h im s e lf t o h a ve been ready , d e sirous, prompt, and eag er .’ " Di Giusepp e , 269 S.W .3d a t 593 ( q uoti ng Ratcl if fe v . M ahr es , 122 S.W .2d 718 , 721 -22 (Te x . Civ . App .–E l Paso 19 38, w rit ref 'd))

. [T]o be enti tl ed to sp eci fic p er formance, the pla int iff must s h ow thati t has subs tanti all y per

formed it s par

t of the c ontract , and thati t i s a ble to cont inu e8

per forming i ts par

t of the a gre e m ent. The pl ain ti ff 's burden of prov ing read iness, wi lling n e s s [ ,] an d ab ility is a continu ing one tha t extends to all time s relev antto the contractand therea f ter. Id . ( q uoti ng 25 R I CHA RD A. L ORD , W I L L I S TON O N C ON T R ACT S § 6 7:15, at 236- 37 ( 4th e d. 2002) ( ci tati ons omit ted) ). I n oth er w ords, the par

ty se eki ng speci fic perfor mance has the burden of

proof to establ is h that it can perfor m the contract

. Di Giusepp e , 269 S. W .3d a t 596; see Cor

zelius v. Ol

iv er , 148 Tex . 76, 220 S.W .2d 6 32, 6 34- 35 ( 1949)

. Sect ion 4A of the c ontractbetw een Es au and Vi ll ar re al re v eal ed th at a thi rd -p arty financi er , C api tal F ar m Bank , i ntended to loa n $176, 000 t o Vil la rre a l to purc hase all of Esau ’s lots. Accordin g to the record, how ever, it app ears that one of Capital Farm Bank’s requireme nts fo r providing the f inan cing w as clear and ma rketab le title to the prop erties. The w il d deed on Lot 16 pr ev ented thi s f ina nci ng f ro m occ ur ri ng , as rev eal ed i n thi s s ect ion of the tr ial record: Q. [Ap pellan t’s coun sel] Doctor Villarreal, af ter the ––I just w ant to m ake itcl ear thatafter

the probl em w it h l ot 16 came up, y ou did no t w ant t o go through w ith the orig inal de al on th e— A. [Vi ll ar re al] I di d w ant t o. Q

. O k a y. A. I di d w ant t o butthe thi ng i s t hat I c ould not

.

. . . . Q. So t he c lou d on the t it le w as re all y not a probl em for y ou?
A. The clou d on the title was som eth ing that was no t goin g to m ake th is cont ra ct go th ro ugh and

that ’ s t he pr oblem
.9

Q. W h e n yo u s a y

“ g o throug h” w hat d o y ou mean by that ? D on’ t y ou mean y ou refuse to per

form under that becaus e of the all eg ed c lou d?
A. W el l , th atw ou l d i nv ol v e a th i rd[
- ]p ar ty fi na nc i ng p rob l em
.

. . . . Q. Di d y ou hav e thi rd [- ]par ty financ ing ar ra ng ed?
A. Y es. I nst ru cti ons w er e g iv en and the c losin g d a te w as done. Ev er ythi ng w as already

there. The dow n pa yment w as re ady and e veryth in g. Q. W hat t hird par

ty w as g oin g to finance i t?
A. C ap i ta l F ar m.

. . . . Q. Di d y ou ev er

tel l them t hat t here w as a probl em w it h the deal and—
A. Yeah. In fact, th ey gav e me — Q. —tha t it had a w ild title—let m e f inish my q uest ion. Did y ou e v er tell y our thi rd par ty financ ier thatthere w as some k ind of probl em w it h the deal hav ing to do w it h thi s l ot 16 ?
A

. Ye a h

. Of

co u rs e , t h e y kn e w.

. . . . Q. Do y ou se e w here it say s “Fi nan cing”?
A. Yes, sir

.10

Q. Und er

4A itsa y s, “Thi rd P a rt y F ina nci ng
. One o r more thi rd par ty mort g ag e l oans in the total amount of $176,000. I f the proper ty does not satisf y the lend ers [sic] und erw riting requireme nts for the loa ns, thi s c ontract w il l ter minat e and the e ar nestmoney w il l be refunded t o b u ye r. ” D id I re a d t h a tco rr e c t ly?
A. Yes, sir

. (Emp hasis ad ded ). Villarreal’s testim ony rev eale d tha t the cloud on Lot 16 prevented Capital Farm f rom a uth oriz ing the loan . In fact, h e late r testif ied th at, “the re w as no w ay [he ] could close
o n t h a t p rope rty

beca use th ere w as no w ay [he ] could g et th e f inan ces.” Villarreal, therefore, had no “a bil ity to per form” the c o n tr a ct becau se he di d nothav e the financ ing to pu rc hase the p ro per

ty at is sue. Al thoug h it is obv iou s from the re cord tha t Vi ll ar re al w as “ready, desirous, p romp t, an d ea ger” for this transa ction to occu r, the evidence is undi sput ed th at, becau se of the w il d deed, Vi ll ar re al w as financi all y unabl e to pur chas e the lan d. Mo re ov er , “ off er ing to p e rfor m does not est abl is h the abi li ty to per form .

. . .” Di Giusepp e , 269 S.W .3d a t 599

. The for e g o i n g u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a tV i l l a r r e a l d i d n o th a v e the f in a n cin g to pu rch a se th e pro p e rt ie s u n d e r co n tr a ctatth e t i m e o f t h e in te n d e d clo sin g,
w hic h neg ates the “a bil ity to per form” ele ment und er

the doct ri ne of spe ci fic p er formance. See Br odhead , 824 S. W .2d a t 620 ; Franklin , 7 7 4 S

. W

. 2 d a t3 1 1

. T h u s , a lt h o u gh we h a ve deter mined that spec ificper formance w as a remedy av ail abl e to Vi ll ar re al under the
c on trac t, t he t r i al c ou rt er r ed i n aw ardi ng i t be c au s e Vi llarreal was nota bl e to p er for m. Di Giusepp e , 269 S.W .3d at 598 ( hold ing tha t altho ugh specif ic performa nce was “ availableW e do not add r ess Esau’ s t hi r d i ssue r egar di ng a t t or ney ’ s f ees, as t hi s awar d wi l l be cont i ngent on 4 th e tri a l c o u rt’ s d e te rm i n a ti o n c o n c e rn i n g w h e th e r V i l l a rr e a l i s e n ti tl e d to “a n y o th e r re l i e f.” In a c c o rd a n c e w i th Sect i on 1 7 oft he cont r act , t he par t y t hat pr ev ai l s shoul d r ecei v e at t or ney ’ s fe es: “t he p r ev ai l i ng p ar t y i n an y l egal pr oceedi ng r el at ed t o t hi s cont r act i s ent i t l ed t o r ecov er r easona bl e at t or ney ’ s f ees a nd a l l cost s of such pro c ee di ng i nc urred by t he preva i l i ng pa rt y . ” 11 as a remedy

. . . noth ing i n the [c ontract ] s ug g est s [Vi ll ar re al] i s reli ev ed of hi s o bli g ati on to prov e he is enti tl ed to i t und er the law .” ). Ac cordin g ly , w e s ust ain Es au’ s s econd i ss ue.

IV. C ONCL US I ON W e reverse. H aving conclud ed th at V il la rr eal is not e ntitled to specif ic pe r for ma nc e, w e r em an d th i s c as e to th e tr i al c ou rt to de te r mi ne w he th er Vi l l arreal is enti tl ed to “ other

su ch re li ef as may

be p ro v ide d by

l aw ,” as se t fort h by

the cont ra ct. 4

_________

_________

______ DORI CONTRERAS GARZA Justice Del iv er ed and filed the 19th day of Aug ust , 201 0.