law-artful-pleading | characterization of claims | notice pleadings | opportunity to amend live pleadings | special
exceptions | plea to the jurisdiction
Supreme Court Rules that Plaintiff Cannot Recover on Fraud Claim as Artful Alternative to Contract
Claim Barred by the Statute of Frauds
Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, No. 04-0851 (Tex. Apr. 20, 2007)(per curiam)(employment dispute)
(fraud damages barred where same damages sought in unenforceable oral contract)
Because these benefit-of-the-bargain damages are the same damages Sonnichsen sought to recover under an
unenforceable contract, his fraud claim fails. See Nagle v. Nagle, 633 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex. 1982); see also
Formosa Plastics, 960 S.W.2d at 46-47 (noting that except fraudulent inducement, contract duties and
damages may not be pursued in common law tort). The trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor
of Baylor on Sonnichsen’s fraud claims. . . .
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by sustaining Baylor’s special exception on Sonnichsen’s
breach of contract claims and the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of Baylor on
Sonnichsen’s fraud claim. Therefore, without granting oral argument, we grant the petition for review, reverse
the judgment of the court of appeals, and render judgment that Sonnichsen take nothing.
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE