Opinion ID: 498731
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Applicability of Mexican Law

Text: 15 For the first time, PEMEX argues that the trial court should have applied Mexican law rather than Texas law. PEMEX contends that this Court should consider this choice of law question to avoid a miscarriage of justice, because under Mexican law the computation of damages is radically different. AITC argues that PEMEX's failure to plead and prove the application of Mexican law at trial precludes its consideration on appeal. Alternatively, AITC argues that Mexican law is inapplicable under Texas choice of law principles. We agree with AITC that PEMEX is precluded from arguing this choice of law question; PEMEX is unable to show how the trial court's decision resulted in manifest injustice. 16 It is well established that parties generally are bound by the theory of law they argue in the district court, absent some 'manifest injustice' . 14 PEMEX contends that the law of Mexico would offer a better or, at least, different result. Manifest injustice, however, exists in extreme circumstances. If manifest injustice only meant that application of another jurisdiction's law would yield a different result, then choice of law issues could always be raised first on appeal. PEMEX has not shown manifest injustice.