In Seelbach v. Clubb, 7 S.W.3d 749, 756 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1999, pet. denied), Seelbach entered into an earnest money contract to purchase some land from the McCoys. Seelbach, 7 S.W.3d at 753. The closing was conditioned on the McCoys establishing for Seelbach that any obstructions to his right to ingress or egress be resolved in his favor. Id. Seelbach contended locked gates interfered with his ability to close on the property and asked the county and two individuals to take down the gates. Id. When the county and the individuals failed to do so, Seelbach sued. Id. at 754. Although the court granted him a permanent injunction, it denied his request for damages and other recovery. Id. at 752. On appeal, among the issues the court considered was whether Seelbach had standing to sue for damages under the earnest money contract. Id. at 755. The court focused its analysis on determining whether the contract was a contract of sale or a contract to sell the property at some point in the future. Id. at 755-56. In concluding the earnest money contract was not a contract of sale but rather an option contract, the court focused on several characteristics of the contract. First, the language of the contract was prospective, indicating the actual sale and purchase of the land would occur in the future. Id. Second, the court noted the contract provided that the seller's only remedy in the event of buyer's default was the retention of earnest money. Id. Because of these provisions, the execution of the earnest money contract was an option contract and not a contract of sale. Id.