Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type
Extended Search
Generic filters
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in excerpt
Search in comments
Filter by Custom Post Type

Criswell v. European Crossroads Shopping Center, Ltd – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In Criswell v. European Crossroads Shopping Ctr., Ltd., 792 S.W.2d 945, 33 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 598 (Tex. 1990), the Texas Supreme Court noted that "because of their harshness in operation, conditions are not favorites of the law." Id.

The Supreme Court directed that in construing a contract, "forfeiture by finding a condition precedent is to be avoided when another reasonable reading of the contract is possible." Id.

The court advised that "in order to make performance specifically conditional, a term such as 'if,' 'provided that,' or some similar phrase of conditional language must normally be included." Id. at 948.

Furthermore, "while there is no requirement that such phrases be utilized, their absence is probative of the parties' intention that a promise be made, rather than a condition imposed." Id.

The Texas Supreme Court also noted that, although words contained in an instrument should be used as controlling guides, punctuation marks can aid in the construction of a document. Id. at 948.

In interpreting a contractual provision, the court determined the effect of a semicolon that separated two phrases in the contract. Id.

Based on the specific facts of that case, the Criswell court concluded that the use of semicolons by the drafter "indicated that each phrase set off by a semicolon was to be read as having independent significance." Id.