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

Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc – Case Brief Summary (Texas)

In Fortune Prod. Co. v. Conoco, Inc., 52 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2000), four natural gas producers brought suit against Conoco, alleging that Conoco made factual misrepresentations during contract negotiations to induce them to accept lower prices for their gas than they otherwise would have accepted. Id. at 674.

Some of the agreements at issue involved written contracts for a stated term, but two did not.

The jury found that all of the plaintiffs had ratified the fraud after they became aware of it, with the intent to ratify the contracts in spite of the fraud. Id. at 675.

On appeal, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed as to those plaintiffs who had no written contract for a specific them.

However, it held that those plaintiffs who did have such written contracts for a stated term were not foreclosed from recovering fraud damages, because they had continued to perform their obligations under the contracts, after they learned of the fraud that induced them to enter them. Id. at 680.