Court Opinion

ID: 9672199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:50:44.368981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:14.872891
License: Public Domain

ON APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
Appellee has filed a motion for rehearing asserting the court erred in holding this is a suit for damages for breach of contract and that he is not entitled to attorneys’ fees.
He says:
“Appellee does not argue with the court’s finding that Article 2226, does not authorize the recovery of attorneys fees in actions founded upon a special contract. Appellee, however, does contend that this Honorable Court was in error in finding that this cause of action was founded upon a special contract and that therefore attorneys fees are not recoverable under the authority of Article 2226, R.C.S.”
Corpus Juris Secundum Vol. 17, page 584, defines Special Contract as follows:
“Special Contract is one with peculiar provisions or stipulations not found in the ordinary contract relating to the same subject matter. These provisions are such as, if omitted from the ordinary contract, the law will never supply. A special contract may rest in parol, and the term does not require a contract by specialty. A special contract is always an express contract.”
In McDonald v. Watkins, 353 S.W.2d 905, (no writ history), the court said:
“The 1883 court says that an open account results when some one or more elements of the contractual agreement between the parties remains open, that is, remains to be ascertained, whereas in a special contract situation all the terms of the contractual agreement are fixed and certain.”
Appellee sued appellant for damages for breach of a written sales representative agreement containing twenty four paragraphs. We are of the opinion that his cause of action was based on a special contract and that he is not entitled to attorneys’ fees.
The appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.