Source: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/arthurs-garage-inc-a-k-a-arthurs-mercedes-benz-appellant-v-racal-chubb-security-systems-inc-racal-corporation-and-chubb-security-systems-inc-appellees
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:58:28+00:00

Document:
COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FIFTH DISTRICT, DALLAS-997 S.W.2d 803; 1999 Tex.
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court.
Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 93-3835-A.
DISPOSITION: REVERSED & REMANDED in part, AFFIRMED as Modified in part.
violate fair notice. The court reversed the allowed recovery of expenses.
affirmed the summary judgment upon the breach of warranty claim.
Martinson, Fanning & Harper, Dallas, TX.
the trial [**2] court's judgment in part and reverse and remand in part.
dollars per month to monitor the alarm system.
furniture, fixtures, [**3] equipment, and miscellaneous items.
Investigators later discovered that the smoke detector was improperly wired.
contractually obligated to indemnify Racal-Chubb against LaBarba's claims.
installation contracts n1 entitled "Liquidated Damages and Indemnification,"
aware of any misrepresentations made by Racal-Chubb.
n1 Both installation contracts contain identical provisions.
and was therefore enforceable against Arthur's Garage.
defense; and (3) the liquidated damages clause is an unenforceable penalty.
recoverable as a matter of law.
between the alleged misrepresentations and its damages.
summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true.
n2 Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-49 (Tex. 1985).
limitation of liability and therefore a penalty analysis does not apply.
system or service is intended to detect or avert.
operate; the nature of the services to be performed by seller.
this liability shall be complete and exclusive.
no way be interpreted to hold seller [**11] as an insurer.
they cannot be used to penalize a party for a [**12] breach of contract.
n6 See Phillips v. Phillips, 820 S.W.2d 785, 788 (Tex. 1991).
n8 See Fox Elec. Co. v. Tone Guard Sec. Inc., 861 S.W.2d 79, 83 (Tex.
App.--Fort Worth 1993, no writ).
provided in the contract was a "reasonable forecast of just compensation."
enforcement of the provision "effectively works a recision of the contract"
by freeing Racal-Chubb from performance under the contract. We disagree.
bargaining power between the parties.
n10 861 S.W.2d at 82-83.
reduce the number of persons who can afford such services.
n12 See Vallance, 595 S.W.2d at 590.
damages proximately caused by their breach -- -- they are not insurers.
customers, resulting in increased prices and fewer customers.
contract does not violate public policy prohibiting such limitations.
n13 See TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 17.42(a) (Vernon Pamph. 1999).
- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -1.
does not limit recovery for an "unconscionable action or course of action"
an unconscionable course of conduct.
n15 See id. § 17.42.
n16 See Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. FDP Corp., 811 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex.
v. Wittstruck, 690 S.W.2d 914, 924 (Tex. App.--Waco 1985, writ dism'd).
n18 See Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Stephens, 871 S.W.2d 317, 322-23 (Tex.
App.--Eastland 1994, writ denied); Hycel, 690 S.W.2d at 923-24.
review and not specifically ruled on by trial court).
n20 See McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 339 (Tex.
n21 See FDP Corp., 811 S.W.2d at 577.
n22 811 S.W.2d at 576-77.
n23 See 811 S.W.2d at 577.
against Arthur's Garage's implied warranty DTPA claim.
n26 Melody Home Mfg. Co. v. Barnes, 741 S.W.2d 349, 355 (Tex. 1987).
preserved for our review. n27 Citing Melody Home Manufacturing Co. v.
n27 See Cates, 927 S.W.2d at 626.
n28 Melody Home, 741 S.W.2d at 354.
n31 See Archibald v. Act III Arabians, 755 S.W.2d 84, 85 (Tex. 1988).
n32 See, e.g., Rocky Mountain Helicopters, Inc. v. Lubbock County Hosp.
Dist., 987 S.W.2d 50, 52-53 (Tex. 1998); Melody Home, 741 S.W.2d at 354.
n33 See Melody Home, 741 S.W.2d at 354.
made if requested by the Subscriber.
sustain Racal-Chubb's first cross-point of error.
workmanlike manner when a party [**26] contracts to "inspect and repair"
requested any repairs or maintenance on the smoke detector.
n35 Dresser Indus., Inc. v. Page Petroleum, Inc., 853 S.W.2d 505, 508 (Tex.
n36 Id.; Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Constr. Co., 725 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex. 1987).
n38 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 1.201(10) (Vernon 1994).
n40 Dresser, 853 S.W.2d at 509.
used instead of the word "purchaser."
n42 See Ethyl Corp., 725 S.W.2d at 708.
n43 See TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 1.201(10) (Vernon 1994).
paid for the alarm system.
n44 Pony Express Courier Corp. v. Morris, 921 S.W.2d 817, 820 (Tex.
App.--San Antonio 1996, no writ); Wade v. Austin, 524 S.W.2d 79, 85 (Tex.
Civ. App.--Texarkana 1975, no writ).
n45 Pony Express, 921 S.W.2d at 821.
n47 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. DeLanney, 809 S.W.2d 493, 498-99 (Tex.
1991) (Gonzalez, J., concurring); Pony Express, 921 S.W.2d at 821.
obtained a higher limitation of liability for an increase in fees.
unconscionable. We overrule Arthur's Garage's second point of error.
n50 See Leon's Bakery, Inc. v. Grinnell Corp., 990 F.2d 44, 49 (2d Cir.
object in the court below.
n51 See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1.
1992, no writ); see also Holland v. Hayden, 901 S.W.2d 763, 765 (Tex.
Accordingly, we now turn to the merits of Arthur's Garage's complaint.
n53 See Willis, 826 S.W.2d at 702.
n54 New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Texas Indus., Inc., 414 S.W.2d 914, 915 (Tex.
626 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1987, writ denied).
n56 739 S.W.2d at 626-27.
n57 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 38.001(8) (Vernon 1997).
n58 See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 17
 § 17
 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 38