Federal Land Bank Association v. Sloane
Texas Supreme Court
825 S.W.2d 439 (1991)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
William, Lettie, and Robert Sloane (plaintiffs) contracted with Pilgrim’s Pride to raise chickens on their farm. The contract was contingent on the Sloanes building new chicken coupes. The Sloanes applied for a loan to do so with the Federal Land Bank Association (the bank) (defendant). The loan officer told the Sloanes that the loan was going to be approved. The Sloanes’ contractor contacted the loan officer before he started work on the chicken houses, and the loan officer said that there was no reason work should not commence. Accordingly, the contractor began work, including the destruction of the Sloanes’ old chicken houses in preparation for the building of the new ones. Subsequently, the bank denied the Sloanes’ loan application. The Sloanes were unable to obtain alternate financing and thus unable to complete the construction on the new chicken coupes. The Sloanes sued the bank for negligent misrepresentation, alleging that the loan officer negligently misrepresented that the loan would be approved. The jury found in the Sloanes’ favor and awarded damages for pecuniary losses, lost profits that would have accrued based on the contract with Pilgrim’s Pride, and mental anguish. The court of appeals declined to award the lost profits but otherwise affirmed the judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gonzalez, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.