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

Heading: Whether Chavez Served as AITC's Agent?

Text: 11 PEMEX argues that this Court should reverse the trial court's finding that Roberto Chavez did not act as AITC's agent, a finding that PEMEX alleges is a mixed question of law and fact. AITC contends that the issue of agency is a question only of fact and that the district court's finding is protected by the clearly erroneous standard of review. Although we agree with PEMEX that this issue is a mixed question of law and fact, we also find that this question is subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review, and we affirm the district court's finding. 12 Although one Texas court has stated that agency is a question of fact, 7 another has stated that agency is a question of law. 8 Actually they are both right; under Texas law, agency is a mixed question of law and fact. The jury's or factfinder's duty is to determine the factual relationship of the parties. The court, under the ascertained facts, then determines whether an agency relation exists as a matter of law. 9 Because this case was not argued before a jury, the trial judge made both the factual and legal determinations regarding the alleged agency relation. 13 The more difficult question, however, is the proper standard of review. This Court rightly stated in Carpenters Amended & Restated Health v. Holleman, 10 The question of the appropriate standard of review for mixed issues of fact and law has long bedeviled appellate courts. 11 In cases where facts were undisputed, we freely have reviewed such questions, but with disputed facts we often have applied the clearly erroneous rule. 12 This case's main dispute concerned what Mr. Chavez said and did at the parties' October 1981 meeting. This predominance of factual issues demands that we apply the clearly erroneous standard of review in this case. 13 14 There was ample evidence for the district court to conclude that Mr. Chavez did not serve as an agent of AITC at the October meeting. Mr. Chavez testified at trial that he was not an agent of AITC and that he never agreed to replace the 105,000 ton contract with a 50,000 ton contract. In these circumstances, we cannot find that the district court's determination was clearly erroneous.