In Alamo Cmty. College Dist. v. Browning Constr. Co., 131 S.W.3d 146, 165-67 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 2004, pet. dism'd by agr.), a jury found that a community college district had breached its contract with a general contractor by withholding payments owed to the contractor, but failed to find the district violated the Prompt Pay Act by "allowing any payment owed to the contractor under the Contract to become overdue." See id. at 165-66 & n.6. The contractor argued that the findings were in irreconcilable conflict because it was undisputed that the withheld payments constituting breach of the contract were held beyond the deadline that would constitute a Prompt Pay Act violation. See id. at 166-67. In light of the asserted conflict, the contractor argued that the court should reverse and render judgment notwithstanding the jury's failure to find for prompt-payment damages and attorney's fees. See id. The court of appeals held that the two findings were not in conflict, reasoning that "the two questions go to different causes of action" such that the "the conflict is not such that one answer would establish a cause of action or defense while the other would destroy it." Id. at 167.