Court Opinion

ID: 9762527
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:25:53.394941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:34.795073
License: Public Domain

OPINION
STEPHEN F. PRESLAR, Assigned Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse the judgment of the trial court and render judgment for TUEC on its motion for summary judgment.
I agree with the majority opinion that the issue is not one of contract construction but is one of compliance. Therefore, it being undisputed that the bonding company did not send notice to “Allen, Texas,” we should hold that there was not compliance. To do otherwise, we must indulge in contract construction and construe the matter of notice to mean that the parties meant a broad form of notice, notice to any office of TUEC, not necessarily the office they specified. As we say in our majority opinion, “Clearly, the naming in the bond of a location where notice should be mailed was made to make sure that TUEC actually received the notice of the cancellation.” Were we free to speculate, we could construe their reason to be that notice should go to the office whose personnel were supplying the customer, Allen Bowl, Inc. in Allen, and were ever aware of the condition of its account. There being no contention that the contract is ambiguous, and both parties having moved for summary judgment, I would hold that the trial court and this Court are without authority to change the exact contract language to measure compliance. We cannot ignore the words used, TUEC office at “Allen, Texas.” To do so deprives the parties of a right to contract for a place of notice; we are telling them that they cannot name a specific place and be bound by it; and if you are a corporation, you are further deprived because the courts will hold that notice to any of your agents will suffice.
Under my view of this case, the sufficiency of the address, “Allen, Texas,” is not before us and would not arise unless an attempted delivery had failed. If speculation were permitted, I would bet that the postman could find the only electric utility in Allen.
The case of Barbier v. Barry should not be binding on this Court, for it was not a summary judgment ruling based on an unambiguous contract; there, the contract wording alone was not relied on, other evidence was presented, and a fact question of substantial compliance was resolved by the court. Here, we have no evidence on the question and are not permitted to go outside the language of the unambiguous con*795tract on which both parties seek summary judgment.
I would reverse and render.