Opinion ID: 2401479
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: consolidated's claim

Text: In order for Consolidated to prevail, it too had to prove breach of contract. The jury found in issue 2 that Southern had substantially failed to cooperate with Consolidated in the fabrication and delivery of the component parts to the project and in issue 3 that Southern's failure to cooperate prevented Consolidated from performing the remainder of its subcontract to completion. Either of these findings establishes breach of contract. In issue 4, the jury further found that Consolidated lost $345,998 prior to abandoning the project solely as a result of Southern's failure to substantially cooperate in the fabrication and delivery of component parts to the job site. Having obtained a favorable jury verdict on these issues, Consolidated is entitled to recover. The confusion in this case stems from issue 2a, by which the jury found that Consolidated remained on the job and continued to insist that Southern perform subsequent to Southern's substantial failure to cooperate. [4] Both Southern and the court of appeals assume that the jury's response to this issue constitutes a finding that Consolidated affirmed the subcontract. We disagree. A party may affirm a contract that has been breached in one of two ways: (1) by evidencing a conscious intent to do so; or (2) by acting so as to induce the other party's detrimental reliance, thereby creating an estoppel situation. See Texas Associates, Inc. v. Joe Bland Const. Co., 222 S.W.2d 413, 420 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1949, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Issue 2a of the contract does not constitute a finding that Consolidated affirmed the contract. It establishes neither waiver nor estoppel. Rather, this issue inquires about evidentiary facts that were uncontroverted throughout the trial. The written correspondence between the parties reveals that, despite their mutual endeavor to continue performance, they intended to preserve all of their legal rights. Moreover, we cannot in equity hold that Consolidated should be estopped from asserting its legal rights simply because it gave Southern another opportunity to comply with the subcontract. Thus, the trial court correctly disregarded issue number 2a.