Opinion ID: 1887496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statute-of-Limitations Defense

Text: The trial court, over Marks's objection, submitted Intergraph's statute-of-limitations defense to the jury. As previously noted, that defense pertained to Marks's claims that Intergraph had misrepresented to him that its Master Architect software would eventually be delivered and that it would perform as represented. Marks introduced evidence indicating that Intergraph told him in 1989 that the development of its Master Architect software was on extended hold but that development was expected to be completed by the end of 1989. Marks also introduced evidence indicating that Intergraph made its EMS and Microstation software available to him as an interim solution until the problems with the Master Architect software could be resolved and that Intergraph, knowing that he might take legal action, had required him to execute certain releases as a condition to its continuing to do business with him. Marks argued that Intergraph secured the releases through misrepresentations and that he was, therefore, fraudulently induced not to sue earlier. Intergraph introduced evidence indicating that it had given Marks written notice in July 1990 that its Master Architect software was being discontinued. Ruth Hardy, regional operations manager for Intergraph, wrote the following in a July 1990 letter to Marks: Please be advised that since your purchase of Master Architect (MARCH) Software Package, Part No. SEAE104, the Intergraph Corporation Price List has been changed to show this product discontinued. It has been replaced by Project Architect (SEAE109), Project Modeler (SEAE140), and Model View (SEAE118). Marks testified that he did not understand this letter to affirmatively state that development of the Master Architect software was being discontinued. He testified, instead, that he thought the letter meant the product would no longer be offered for sale. We agree with the trial court that a fact question was presented both as to whether Marks knew or should have known more than two years before he filed his complaint in 1993 that he would not be receiving the Master Architect software and as to whether Intergraph had fraudulently induced Marks not to file an action before the running of the statutory limitations period. The court properly presented the statute-of-limitations defense to the jury.