Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Raul Resendez and his business entities allegedly entered into a 10-year partnership with Pace Concerts and two other concern promoters to promote music concerts worldwide. Pace later sought a declaratory judgment that the contract was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because it was not in writing. The trial court agreed and granted Pace’s summary judgment motion. The court also awarded Pace attorneys’ fees under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. On appeal, Resendez claims that he was fraudulently induced to enter into the agreement and that he is entitled to benefit-of-the-bargain damages. He also disputes the award of attorneys’ fees. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court first notes that Haase v. Glazner, 62 S.W.3d 795 (Tex. 2001), contradicts Resendez’s argument regarding benefit-of-the-bargain damages. There, the court expressly held that “the Statute of Frauds bars a fraud claim to the extent the plaintiff seeks to recover as damages the benefit of a bargain that cannot otherwise be enforced because it fails to comply with the Statute of Frauds.” The court thus holds that Resendez cannot assert fraud in the inducement to recover damages measured by the benefit of the bargain when the contract manifesting the bargain is unenforceable due to the Statute of Frauds. The court also finds Haase controlling to rebut Resendez’ contention that the Statute of Frauds does not apply when the party seeking recovery averts a claim sounding in fraud. The court then finds that partial performance of the agreement does not render the Statute of Frauds inapplicable, either. Though it can in some instances, Resendez did not meet his burden to show why it did. He did not show how he acted in reliance upon the agreement and suffered a substantial detriment for which there is no adequate remedy nor why Pace would reap an unearned benefit if the Statute of Frauds was applied. The court rules the issue of attorneys’ fees is moot. OPINION:Quinn, J.; Quinn and Reavis, JJ., and Boyd, S.J., sitting by assignment.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.