Isaacs v. Bishop
Texas Court of Appeals
249 S.W.3d 100 (2008)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Bishop bought a racetrack from Isaacs. Isaacs financed the sale, and Isaacs’s attorney drafted a promissory note containing Bishop’s payment obligation. Isaacs’s attorney inserted an automatic-default provision in the note. Bishop had the chance to, but did not, read the note. The racetrack became profitable, at which point Isaacs sought to oust Bishop by using the default provision. Isaacs began foreclosure proceedings. A jury found that Isaacs committed fraud by inserting the default provision. Bishop sought to rescind the purchase because of this fraud. The jury, however, found that Isaacs was only 70 percent at fault. The jury found that Bishop was 30 percent at fault due to his negligence in not reading the fraudulently added provision. The trial court thus denied Bishop’s request for rescission. Bishop appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Morriss, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.
