PRINTING CENTER OF TEXAS INC V SUPERMIND TRIAL
Civ.App.-Austin 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.).Īppellant has not assigned a point of error as to whether the trial court's judgment is supported by the verdict of the jury. The equitable relief of rescission of the contract will not be granted for breach of the contract. The buyer's remedy in that case would be damages for breach of contract. The affirmative answer to this issue does not give the purchaser a right to reject and to recover a refund of the purchase price under the common law of contracts as it would under Chapter 2 of the Code. Special issue number one inquired of the jury whether the books delivered to appellee failed in any respect to conform to the contract.
PRINTING CENTER OF TEXAS INC V SUPERMIND CODE
It appears to us that the services are the essence or the dominant factor of a printing contract therefore, Chapter 2 of the Business and Commerce Code would not apply. "In such hybrid transactions, the question becomes whether the dominant factor or essence of the transaction is the sale of materials or of services." G-W-L, Inc. The printer sells goods which consist of paper and ink and services consisting of binding, typesetting, proofing, etc. A contract to print books involves the sale of both goods and services. Chapter 2 of the Business and Commerce Code is limited to transactions involving the sale of goods. The parties tried this suit on the assumption that the provisions of the Texas Uniform Commercial Code governed their contract for the printing of books. We note that appellee may have tried this suit on the wrong legal theory and if so, the judgment of trial court is not supported by the jury findings. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 3737e (Vernon Supp.1982-1983): 2) whether the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that the books failed to conform to the contract and 3) whether the judgment of the trial court is void because it did not have jurisdiction to award a judgment in excess of its maximum jurisdictional limit. This appeal raises issues concerning: 1) whether appellee laid the proper predicate for admission of an attorney's billing statement as proof of reasonable attorney's fees under .ANN. The trial court awarded appellee refund of its $2900 deposit and $3000 as reasonable attorney's fees on the verdict of the jury. UCC) (Vernon 1968) and that it has a right to cancel the contract and recover the part of the purchase price paid under TEX.BUS. Appellee sued appellant for refund of a deposit made under a written contract to print 5000 books entitled "Supermind Supermemory." Appellee alleged that it rightfully rejected the books upon delivery under TEX.BUS.
0 kommentar(er)
