Anthony Industries, Inc. v. Ragsdale

643 S.W.2d 167 (1982)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Anthony Industries, Inc. v. Ragsdale

Texas Court of Appeals
643 S.W.2d 167 (1982)

Facts

The Ragsdales’ (plaintiffs) home was located on a hill. Nevertheless, the Ragsdales wanted to build a swimming pool, so they contacted Anthony Industries, Inc. (Anthony Pools). Jay Ratliff, an Anthony Pools representative, went to the Ragsdales’ house to discuss plans. Ratliff assured the Ragsdales that Anthony Pools could build a pool without any problem. The Ragsdales also wanted a rock-retaining wall and a flagstone deck installed around the pool. Ratliff advised the Ragsdales that Anthony Pools did not do stonework and suggested that they subcontract that work. The Ragsdales entered into a contract with Anthony Pools for the pool only. The contract provided that the Ragsdales were responsible for ensuring that drainage beyond the pool site met city and county requirements. The contract also stated that Anthony Pools was not liable for any subcontractor’s work and contained an integration clause. A few days later, Ratliff gave the Ragsdales a set of plans and specifications comprised of several drawings, which showed the placement of the pool relative to the locations of the house, the deck, and the wall. Soon after, Jerry White approached the Ragsdales with a copy of the drawings. White purported to be a partner of Kees Fireplaces and contracted with the Ragsdales to build the deck and the wall. However, once the Ragsdales paid White a downpayment, he ran off with the money. Charles McKee, another partner of Kees Fireplaces, performed the work, but he did a terrible job, which resulted in a drainage problem. The Ragsdales sued Anthony Pools and McKee (defendants) under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). The Ragsdales alleged that Ratliff represented that the pool, deck, and wall could be built without any problems. The Ragsdales also alleged that Ratliff made many warranties to them regarding the pool, deck, and wall. The jury found that Ratliff made a misrepresentation, and the lower court awarded treble damages.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jordan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership