Vick v. Waits

2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 3982 (2002)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Vick v. Waits

Texas Court of Appeals
2002 Tex. App. LEXIS 3982 (2002)

Facts

Gary C. Wick and Carolyn Wick (plaintiffs) contracted with Bantam (defendant) for the construction of an office building. A dispute arose between the Wicks and Bantam after construction had been completed. The parties attended mediation and reached a settlement agreement in which Bantam assigned all claims for repairs, corrections, and warranty work to the Wicks and agreed to use its best efforts to cause all subcontractors to cooperate with the Wicks on any corrections. Waits (defendant), a subcontractor, was not a party to the settlement agreement. The agreement did not identify any specific claims or warranties on the building. Months after the settlement agreement had been reached, the Wicks brought an action against Bantam and Waits for breach of the agreement and fraud, claiming Bantam and Waits had not cooperated with the Wicks in good faith with regard to the project warranties and corrections. The Wicks also claimed that Bantam and Waits fraudulently induced them to sign the settlement agreement by representing during mediation that the agreement would be enforceable against subcontractors, that they would use their best efforts to cooperate in any corrections, and that any claims for warranties and corrections would be assigned to the Wicks. Bantam and Waits sought summary judgment on the fraud claim on the ground that the Wicks offered no evidence of false representations. The Wicks provided an affidavit from Gary Wick, which detailed numerous alleged false representations, as the basis of their fraud claim. Bantam and Waits objected to this evidence on the ground that much of it had been made during the mediation. Therefore, they claimed the statements were confidential under the Texas Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures Act. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment. The Wicks appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wright, 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 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  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.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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 815,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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