Source: http://texas-opinions.com/files/04-07-00814-CV-pet-denied-Jul-2009-McDougalv-Stevens-Tex-App-San-Antonio-as-is-language-disclaimer-of-reliance-fraudulent-inducement-claim-SJ.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:19:16+00:00

Document:
the claims against Stevens, and McDougal and M&P appealed. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
IN THE WARRANTY DEED, ASSIGNMENT AND BILL OF SALE AND AGREEMENT WITH AND TO BUYER.
relying solely upon Buyer’s or its representatives’ own physical inspection of the Property.
purchase and sale of the Property.
on May 12, 1999, survived closing.
represented by Stevens and the soil and equipment were of lesser quality than represented by Stevens.
financial condition by not disclosing personal loans he had made to Stevens Contracting.
motion for summary judgment without specifying the basis for its ruling.
there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ.
must disprove, as a matter of law, one of the essential elements of each of the plaintiff’s causes of action.
establish the movant’s right. McConnell v. Southside Independent School Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 343 (Tex.
1993); City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979).
objections to it must be in writing and before the trial judge at the hearing.”).
motion for summary judgment cannot “be considered on appeal as grounds for reversal.” Tex. R. Civ. P.
858 S.W.2d 374, 380 (Tex. 1993).
buyers agree to make their own appraisal of the bargain and to accept the risk that they may be wrong. Id.
that the seller’s conduct will cause him damage.
the surrounding circumstances to determine if the agreement is binding and enforceable. Forest Oil Corp. v.
knowledgeable in business matters; and (5) the release language was clear. Id.
judgment proceeding, such fraudulent inducement is in the nature of a counter-defense. Lim v. Baker, No.
04-06-00703-CV, 2007 WL 4180153, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, Nov. 28, 2007, no pet.); Larsen v.
Carlene Langford & Assoc., Inc., 41 S.W.3d 245, 253 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. denied); see Cherry v.
subject of the contract, he would not have assented to a contract which contained an “as is” provision.
of a simple fraud claim. Lim, 2007 WL 4180153, at *2; id.
Stevens met his initial burden of establishing he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Tex. R. Civ.
and present summary judgment proof to establish a fact issue. See Clear Creek, 589 S.W.2d at 678-79.
McDougal and M&P failed to meet this burden.
raising a fact issue for the first time on appeal which was not expressly presented to the trial court).
properly granted summary judgment in favor of Stevens. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.