NO. 07-08-0344-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D MARCH 12, 2010

__________________ ____________ ASHLEIGH M. SMITH, APPELLANT V. ALDERSON ENTERPRISES, L.P., APPELLEE

__________________ _______________ FROM THE 72 ND DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; NO. 2007-539,137; HONORABL E RUBEN REYES, JUDGE

__________________ _____________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Ashleigh M. Smith, brought a dec laratory judgment, breach of contract, and tort action against Appel lee, Alderson Enterprises, L.P. Following a jury determination that Smith entered into a legal ly enforceable contract with Alderson to purchase a new car, the trial court found th at Smith breached the contract and awarded2 damages to Alderson. In a single point of e rror, Smith asserts the trial court erred by upholding the jury determi nation and denying Smith = s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verd ict. We affirm.
Background In 2004, Smith purchased a Lexus RX330 from Alderson, a car dealership located in Lubbock, Texas. In April 2007, she br ought the RX330 to Alderson for repairs and began shopping for a replacement car. On Ap ril 5, she asked an Alderson salesman to put some numbers together on a Mercedes ML350 and, two days later, she returned with her husband to look at the Me rcedes ML350 and a Lexus IS250. On April 12, Smith met with Jimmy Myatt, the Alderson car salesman w ho originally sold her the RX330, and after test driving three vehicles, she asked Myat t to put some numbers together on the Lexus IS250. After further negotiati ons, Myatt and Smith agreed on a price for the IS250 and the trade-in value of her RX330. After determining the cash payoff to ABC Bank on her trade-in, Myatt determined the net pur chase price and filled out a buyer = s order form. With a cash down payment of ten thousand dollars, under the A Total Payments @ heading, three financing scenarios were described. One scenario calculated payments of $661.28 per month for thirty-six months without assigning an interest rate. 1 The two

1 Although the interest rate was not stated, it wa s calculable from the figures provided. The subsequently signed typewritten buyer's order form and Motor Vehicle Installment Sales Contract both reflect that a 6.1% APR was applied to arrive at 36 monthly payments of $661.28.3 remaining scenarios calculated monthly payments for forty-ei ght and sixty months at 6.9% interest. Once Myatt obtained Smith = s agreement to the figures on the handwritten buyer = s order form, he took the form to Glen Garnett, Alderson = s new car sales manager. After Garnett initialed the order ( A OK by GG @ ), Myatt introduced Smith to Sharla Snuggs, Alderson = s financial services manager. Myatt test ified he had sold the IS250 to Smith before he introduced her to Snuggs. 2
While Smith was in Snuggs = s office, the handwritten buyer = s order form was typed. All of the numbers on the typewritten form we re the same with the exception that the forty-eight and sixty month fi nancing options at 6.9% were eliminated and financing at 6.1% for thirty-six months, with payments of $661.28 per month, was typed on the form. The form also indicated a cash payment of te n thousand dollars and provided that Toyota Motor Credit Corporation would finance the balance due. Smith signed the typewritten form. Smith also signed a multit ude of other sale documents while she was in Snuggs = s office. One document was a power of at torney unconditionally permitting Alderson to transfer ownership of the RX330 to another buyer. Smith signed as the RX330's A seller @

2 Myatt = s testimony was corroborated by Snuggs = s testimony that she does not negotiate deals. According to Snuggs, "They don = t come into my office unless they ha ve agreed to buy the car and they want the car. My job is just to formalize the process."4 and Alderson signed as A buyer. @ 3 In addition to the power of attorney, Smit h also signed an odometer disclosure stat ement for the RX330, as A transferor @ ; an arbitration agreement as A buyer @ ; an application to register and title the IS250 as A purchaser @ with Toyota Motor Credit Corporation as the A first lien holder @ ; a credit application for purchase of the IS250 as A applicant @ ; a Motor Vehicle Retail Inst allment Sales Contract as A buyer; @ and a privacy notice to protect against Alderson = s disclosure of nonpublic information as

A customer. @ Snuggs understood Smith want ed the vehicle titled to reflect her husband as a co-buyer; therefore, she gave Smith a number of documents for Dr. Smith = s signature and asked Smith to mail them back to Alderson when they were completed. 4 Subsequently, Smith took delivery of the IS250. Alderson affixed a A red tag @ on the car that indicated Alderson had sold the IS250 to Smith as A Buyer. @ 5 Thereafter, Smith transferred her personal items from the RX33 0 to the IS250, and drove home to Clovis, New Mexico.

3 The RX330 was titled in Smith = s name only.

4 The following documents were marked for Dr. Smith = s signature: the Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Contract as A co-buyer @ and attached notice to co-signer; the typewritten buyer = s order form; arbitration agreement as A buyer @ ; application for vehicle title and registration as A 2 nd registered owner @ ; credit application as A co-applicant @ ; and privacy notice as A co-customer. @

5 Myatt testified a A black tag @ is placed on a vehicle being test driven because the A black tag @ indicates Alderson owns the vehicle. Paul Scott, Alderson = s general manager, testified that Alderson = s dispensation of A red tags @ to salesmen is regulated by the dealersh ip and the State. Scott testified that,

A [i]n the history of Alderson = s dealership, there has never been a time when they affixed a red tag to a vehicle for a test drive. @5 After her arrival, Dr. Smit h reviewed the paperwork for the car. He contacted Snuggs and asked her to redo the paperwork so the IS250 could be titled to A Smith Chiropractic Center, P.A. @ with him as personal guarant or. Snuggs re-drafted the paperwork and sent the package to Dr. Smith by Federal Express. 6
Less than one week later, on April 18, the Smiths were involved in an accident while driving the IS250. 7 The next day, Smith drove the damaged IS250 to Alderson and attempted to return the vehicle, insisting that she was merely test driving the vehicle and had not purchased it. Prior to her arri val, Smith had not informed anyone at the dealership of the accident. Myatt looked at the damaged IS250 and attemp ted to advise Smith on the process for submitting an insuranc e claim. At Myatt = s behest, Paul Scott, Alderson = s general manager, became involved. Scott suggested that Smith have an estimate of damages prepared by a nearby body shop . Smith drove the car to the body shop where they estimated the damages could be repaired for five thousand dollars. Thereafter, Smith returned to the dealership, left the IS250, and departed.
Later, Dr. Smith called Scott. Scott in formed Dr. Smith that his wife had purchased the IS250; however, he did offer to assist with filing an insurance claim and

6 Neither Smith nor Dr. Smith ever executed these papers.

7 The police report listed the owner of the IS250 as A Smith Chiro. @6 trade-in of the IS250 on another vehicle. Dr. Smith informed Scott that he was calling his attorney. In May, Alderson sold the RX330 and paid off the remaining balance of Smith = s loan to ABC Bank. Snuggs testified Al derson fulfilled its end of the bargain, i.e., sold Smith the IS250 for the agreed upon price of $36,000, allowed Smit h the agreed upon trade-in value of $21,000 on her trade-in, deliv ered the IS250 to Smith, and paid off the balance of the debt owed to ABC Bank by Smith on the RX330. Also in May, Smith filed her amended petition for declaratory judgment, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and permanent injunctive re lief. In addition to tort and contractual remedies, Smith sought a declara tion from the trial c ourt that no binding contract to purchase the IS250 exist ed between Smith and Alderson. Alderson counterclaimed for damages due to breach of contract. Following a four day tria l, the jury found that A Smith and Alderson Enterprises, L.P., enter[ed] into an agreement for the purchase of a 2007 Lexus Model IS250 on April 12, 2007. @ In its judgment issued July 29, 2008, the trial court f ound that Smith breached the contract of sale and awarded dam ages to Alderson. After Smith = s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict was denied by t he trial court, this appeal followed.7 Discussion Smith asserts the trial c ourt erred, as a matter of law, by upholding the jury = s determination that a legally enforceable contract existed between Smith and Alderson, and denying Smith = s motion for judgment not withstanding the verdict. Smith asserts no contract existed because her husband did not review and sign the sale documentation or approve the car. Smith also asserts the typewritten buyer = s order, signed by her, was not a contract document because a term varied from the pr ior handwritten buyer = s order and the typewritten buyer = s order was not signed by the dealership. Alderson asserts Smith agreed to buy the car, signed all th e necessary documentation, and accepted delivery.

I. Standard of Review We review declaratory judgments under th e same standards as other judgments and decrees. Lidawi v. Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co. , 112 S.W.3d 725, 730 (Tex.App.

B Houston [14 th Dist.] 2003, no pet.). We look to the procedure used to resolve the issue at trial to determine the standard of re view on appeal. Id. In reviewing rulings on motions for j udgment notwithstanding the verdict, appellate courts apply the no-evidence standard. See City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 823 (Tex. 2005); McGuire, Craddock, Strother & Hale , P.C. v. Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc. , 251 S.W.3d 890, 894 (Tex.App.

B Dallas 2008, pet. denied). The court reviews the evidence and must credit the favo rable evidence if reasonable jurors would8 and disregard contrary evidence unl ess reasonable jurors would not. City of Keller , 168 S.W.3d at 826-27. A challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence will be sustained when, among other things, the evidence offered to establish a vital fact does not exceed a scintilla. Kroger Texas Ltd. P = ship v. Suberu , 216 S.W.3d 788, 793 (Tex. 2006). That is, the evidence offered to estab lish a vital fact must not be A so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion @ that the fact exists. Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway , 135 S.W.3d 598, 601 (Tex. 2004). Theref ore, the focus of our inquiry is whether the jury's determination that a lega lly enforceable contract existed between Smith and Alderson is supported by legally sufficient evidence. Further, when parties offer conflicting test imony, particularly on an issue such as intent, the jury has the exclusive respon sibility to determine the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony; Serv. Corp. Int = l v. Aragon, 268 S.W.3d 112, 118 (Tex.App.

B Eastland 2008, pet. denied); Brown v. Taylor , 210 S.W.3d 648, 672-73 (Tex.App.

B Houston [1 st Dist.] 2006, no pet.), and resolve conflicts and inconsistencies in the testimony of any one witne ss as well as in the testimony of different witnesses. Banks v. Columbia Hosp. at Medi cal City Dallas Subsidiary, L.P. , 233 S.W.3d 64, 67-68 (Tex.App.

B Dallas 2007, pet. denied). Where the jury believes one party = s version of the events underlying the action over another, we cannot substitute our judgment or opinion for that of the jury. Lofton v. Tex. Brine Corp. , 720 S.W.2d 804, 805 (Tex. 1986). See Carousel = s Creamery, L.L.C. v. Marble Slab Creamery, Inc. , 134 S.W.3d 385, 404 (Tex.App.

B Houston [1 st Dist.] 2004, pet. dism = d by agr.). In other9 words, the jury's determination of the intent of the parties, or the lack thereof, is entitled to almost total deference.

II. Contract
In its simplest terms, a contract is es tablished when proven by a preponderance of the evidence that an offer is acc epted, accompanied by consideration. See Domingo v. Mitchell , 257 S.W.3d 34, 39-40 (Tex.App.

B Amarillo 2008, pet. denied). To determine whether there was an offer and acceptance, and therefore a "meeting of the minds," courts use an objective standar d, concerning what the parties did and said, not their subjective states of mind. See Komet v. Graves, 40 S.W.3d 596, 601 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2001, no pet.).

A Meeting of the minds @ describes the mutual underst anding and assent to the agreement regarding t he subject matter and the essent ial terms of the contract. Weynand v. Weynand , 990 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex.App.

B Dallas 1999, pet. denied). Where this element is contest ed, as here, the determination of the existence of a contract becomes a question of fact. Hallmark v. Hand , 885 S.W.2d 471, 476-77 (Tex.App.

B El Paso 1996, writ denied).
Further, parties may agree to the material terms of a contract but leave other matters open for later negotiation; it is only when an essential te rm is left open for future negotiation that no binding contract exists. Kelly v. Rio Grande Computerland Group ,10 128 S.W.3d 759, 766 (Tex.App.

B El Paso 2004, no pet.); Komet v. Graves , 40 S.W.3d at 602. Written contracts may also consist of multiple documents; City of Houston v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. , 233 S.W.3d 441, 445 (Tex.App.

B Houston [14 th Dist.] 2007, no pet.), and writings may be consi dered together if they pertain to the same transaction. City of Keller, 168 S.W.2d at 811 . See Jones v. Kelley , 614 S.W.2d 95, 98 (Tex. 1981) (separate instruments executed at the same time, for the same purpose, and in the course of the same transaction are to be considered as one instru ment and construed together). In addition, if one party signs a c ontract, the other may a ccept by his or her acts, conduct, or acquiescence in the terms of the contract. DeClaire v. G. & B. McIntosh Family Ltd. P'ship, 260 S.W.3d 34, 44 (Tex.App.--Hou ston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (collected cases cited therein).
Here, there is more than a sci ntilla of evidence supporting the jury = s determination that Smith entered into a cont ract to purchase the Lexus IS250 from Alderson. When Myatt presented Smith with the handwritten buyer = s order initialed by his sales manager, Alderson made an offer to sell the IS250 to Sm ith. The offer contained the essential financial elements of the agreemen t, the sales price, the trade- in value of her RX330, the down payment, and three optional financing arrangements. Smith accepted Alderson = s offer on terms identical to thos e offered in the handwritten buyer = s order when she signed the typewritten buyer = s order. 8 The sole difference being that, in her acceptance of the

8 That the type-written buyer = s offer disclosed an interest rate at 6.1% is immaterial because the payment term, thirty-six months, and monthly paymen t, $661.28, remained the same as that disclosed in the handwritten buyer order.11 typewritten terms, Smith chose between the th ree methods of financing offered in the handwritten buyer = s order. 9

That a contract formed was also evi denced by the parties' actions after the type-written buyer = s order was executed by Smith. Sm ith executed a power of attorney unconditionally authorizing Alderson to sell her trade-in vehicle and transfer ownership. Alderson delivered the new IS250 to Smith. Smith accepted the new car, removed her possessions from the RX330, placed them in the IS250 and drove to New Mexico with a temporary license tag indicating s he had bought the car from Alderson.
Relying upon Gilbert v. Texas and portions of Snuggs = s testimony, Smith asserts there was no contract to sell the IS250 becaus e Dr. Smith did not sign the sale and financing documents. 10 Snuggs's testimony, however, is equally consistent with the notion that, if Dr. Smith did not sign the sales contract or financing statement, he would not be shown on the title as a co-buyer. Snuggs also testified that Smith agreed to buy

9 Pursuant to the terms of the buyer = s order, Alderson retained the option of cancelling the contract if the dealership could not obtain approval of the order = s terms from a bank or finance company. While Smith would treat this contract provision as a conditi on precedent, the provision is a condition subsequent, i.e., a condition referring to a future event, upon the happening of which the obligation becomes no longer binding upon the other party, if he or she choo ses to avail themselves of the condition. Abraham Inv. Co. v. Payne Ranch, Inc. , 968 S.W.2d 518, 524 (Tex.App.

B Amarillo 1998, pet. denied); Rincones v. Windberg , 705 S.W.2d 846, 848 (Tex.App.

B Austin 1986, no writ). See Black = s Law Dictionary 312 (8 th ed. 2004). Further, although, as Smith suggests, the buyer = s order is an offer, its expr ess language provides that the order A becomes an agreement with dealer when it is acc epted by dealer or its authorized representative. @

10 Gilbert v. Texas , 218 S.W.2d 906 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1949, writ ref’d n.r.e.) is of no assistance to Smith. In Gilbert , the court found there was no meeting of the minds and, hence, no contract where the alleged contracting document was a letter i ndicating that a certain party had been accepted as a purchaser of the property but also indicated t he property was being offered to another prospective purchaser and expressed an intent to hold further negotiations. Id. at 941-42.12 the IS250 and the financing agreement was sent to her husband to co-sign. She further testified that the documents we re not sent to Dr. Smith A to review but to sign and return back. @ Scott testified the buyer = s order is the actual sale s agreement, not the financing agreement. He further testified Alderson co nsidered the sale of the car to Smith a A done deal @ whether or not Dr . Smith signed off on the sales ag reement or financing agreement. Myatt = s testimony regarding whet her Smith bought the car is compatible with the testimony of Snuggs and Scott. 11
Smith accepted Alderson = s offer and undertook to perform the contract as it was prepared, executed, and delivered. See Centennial Royalty Company v. Byrd & Foster Drilling, Inc. , 464 S.W.2d 420, 422-23 (Tex.Civ.App.

B El Paso 1971, no writ). See also Krupp Organization v. Belin Communities, Inc., 582 S.W.2d 514, 518-19 (Tex.Civ.App.

B Houston [1 st Dist.] 1979, writ ref = d n.r.e.). That her husband, Dr. Smith, was listed as a buyer on upper portions of the buyer = s order form does not prevent a binding contract to purchase the IS250 from being formed as between Smith and Alderson unless the parties agr eed that Dr. Smith's signatur e was a prerequisite, or condition precedent, to the formation of a binding contract.

11 Even if, as Smith suggests, Snuggs = s testimony did conflict with the jury = s finding and/or the testimony of her co-workers, we must defer to the jury = s determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson , 116 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Tex. 2003). A court of appeals cannot A pass upon a witnesses = credibility or substitute its judgment for that of the jury, even if the evid ence would clearly support a different result. @ Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis , 971 S.W.2d 402, 407 (Tex.), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 1017, 119 S.Ct. 541, 142 L.Ed.2d 450 (1998).13 III. Condition Precedent

Smith asserts there was no meeting of the minds on t he sale of the new car because she A understood @ there could be no contract to purchase the car until her husband had signed the paperwork and A was otherwise satisfied with the car. @ 12 In essence, Smith contends her husband = s signature and satisfaction were conditions precedent to the existence of a contra ct for the purchase of the new car.
A condition precedent may be a condition to the formation of a contract. Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. George E. Gibbons, 537 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Tex. 1976). See Progressive County Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trevino , 202 S.W.3d 811, 814-15 (Tex.App.

B San Antonio 2006, pet. denied). In order to make performance s pecifically conditional, a term such as A if, @ A provided that, @ A on condition that, @ or some similar phrase of conditional language must normally be in cluded in the contract. Criswell v. Eur opean Crossroads Shopping Center, Ltd. , 792 S.W.2d 945, 948 (Tex. 1990). Although there is no requirement that such phrases be utilized, their absence is probat ive of an intention that a promise be made rather t han a condition imposed. Hohenberg , 537 S.W.2d at 3. See Hirschfeld Steel Co. v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. , 201 S.W.3d 272, 281

12 Smith repeatedly testified at trial that she A understood @ she was signing the paperwork to take the car for a test drive to New Mexico where her husban d could look at the car. Myatt and Snuggs testified Smith did not tell them she was taking the car to New Mexico for a test drive. Further, the jury = s verdict indicates they relied on the testimony of Myatt and Snuggs while disregarding Smith = s testimony. It is not within the province of this c ourt to interfere with the jury = s resolution of conflicts in the evidence or pass on the weight or credibility of the witness = s testimony. See Benoit v. Wilson , 150 Tex. 273, 239 S.W.2d 792, 797 (1951).14 (Tex.App.

B Houston [14 th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). And, because of their harshness, conditions precedent are not favored in the law. PAJ, Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co. , 243 S.W.3d 630, 636 (Tex. 2008); Hirshfeld , 201 S.W.3d at 281.
Here, there is no express contractual pr ovision creating any condition precedent asserted by Smith. 13 Nevertheless, wher e one party testifies that a contract was conditioned upon the happening of an event and the other party denies the existence of such a condition, 14 as we have here, the evidence rais es an issue of fact to be decided by the jury. Turboff v. Gertner, Ar on & Ledet Investments, 763 S.W.2d 827, 830 (Tex.App.

B Houston [14 th Dist. 1988, writ denied) (conflicting testimony on issue whether party = s signature was a condition precedent to a contract raises a fact issue); Perry, 377 S.W.2d at 771. 15 Although Smith testified it was her A understanding @ or A assumption @ there would be no contract until her husband sign ed the documents or expressed his satisfaction with the car, t here is no evidence of record indicating she voiced her

13 Thus, neither In Re Bunzl USA, Inc. , 155 S.W.3d 202 (Tex.App.

B El Paso 2004, no pet.) nor Davis v. Phillips A. Ryan Lumber Co., 248 S.W. 448 (Tex.Civ.App.

B Texarkana 1923, writ dism = d w.o.j.) are of any assistance to Smith. In Bunzl , the court held that the parties did not intend to be bound until the parties signed a contract that contained a bl ank signature block and an express prov ision requiring all modifications and amendments to the contract to be in writing and signed by the parties to be effective. Id. at 211. Here, Alderson signed a handwritten buyer = s order with the same terms as that subsequently signed by Smith. Moreover, there was no blank signature line for Dr. Smith and the buyer = s order did not contain an express provision similar to that in Bunzl. In Davis , aside from other distinguishin g factors, the contract at issue there contained ex press stipulations requiring t he assent of all three parties to a contract that was strictly unilateral. Id. at 450.

14 A It is generally held that a conditional delivery of a writing may be shown by parol testimony if the conditional delivery establishes a condition pr ecedent rather than a condition subsequent. @ Perry v. Little , 377 S.W.2d 765, 769 (Tex.Civ.App.

B Dallas 1964, writ ref = d n.r.e.).

15 See also RSM Production Corporation v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc. , No. 14-07-00563-CV, 2008 WL 4657735, *4-6 (Tex.App.

B Houston [14 th Dist.] 2008, no pet.) (not designated for publication).15 A understanding @ to anyone or that anyone at Alder son agreed with this proposition. Rather, Myatt, Snuggs, and Scott all testif ied Smith unconditionally purchased the car. Thus, even if Smith = s testimony created a conflic t in the record, the jury = s verdict on such matters is generally regarded as conclusive. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Scharrenbeck , 146 Tex. 153, 204 S.W. 2d 508, 511-12 (1947).
In addition to asserting that a sales agreement could not be premised on the buyer = s orders, Smith also asserts the A Motor Vehicle Retail Installment Sales Contract @ was not a valid sales agreement between Smith and Alderson because the document was not executed by either Dr . Smith or Alderson. Havi ng already determined that the buyer's order form is sufficient indicia of an agreement between Sm ith and Alderson, we need not decide the enforceability of the MVRISC as further evidence of that agreement. The jury was asked simply to determine whether A Smith and Alderson Enterprises, L.P., enter[ed] into an agreement for the purchase of a 2007 Lexus Model IS250 on April 12, 2007, @ and we find there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support their determination. 16

16 Because the jury = s charge was not challenged or excepted to and there were no special issues suggested by either party, A we must conclude that all controversial issu es of fact were correctly submitted to the jury, and the judgment of the trial court foreclos es all other issues that should have been submitted. @ Tarlton v. Trezevant & Cochran , 165 S.W.2d 514, 516 (Tex.Civ.App.

B Dallas 1942, writ ref = d w.o.m.). See also Tex. R. Civ. P. 272 ( A All objections not so presented shall be considered as waived. @ ); Tex. R. Civ. P. 273 (proposed jury instructions A shall be prepared and presented to the court and submitted to opposing counsel for examination and objection @ ).16 Although Smith also asserts there was no contract because she did not read the documents before she signed them , she does not claim she was tricked or defrauded. She testified that neither Myatt nor Snuggs were A high-pressure @ or pressured her into a sale. Further, she spent nearly f our hours with the doc uments in Snuggs = s office while speaking with her husband on the telephone. As such, she is charged with knowledge of all the terms of the documents she signed. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America , 148 S.W.3d 124, 134 (Tex. 2004). See Wee Tots Pediatrics, P.A. v. Morohunfola , 268 S.W.3d 784, 791 (Tex.App.

B Fort Worth 2008, no pet.). A [P]arties to a contract have an obligation to protect themselv es by reading what they sign. @ Thigpen v. Locke , 363 S.W.2d 247, 253 (Tex. 1963). Because there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the jury = s finding that Smith and Alderson did enter into an agreement for the sa le of the IS250, Smith = s single point of error is overruled.

Conclusion

The trial court = s judgment is affirmed.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice