law-meeting-of-the-minds | formation of contract | defenses to breach of contract claims | definiteness of agreed-
upon contractual terms |
To be enforceable, a contract must be sufficiently certain to enable a court to determine the rights and
responsibilities of the parties. Id. (citing T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 221
(Tex.1992)). The material terms of a contract must be agreed upon before a court can enforce the
contract. See T.O. Stanley Boot, 847 S.W.2d at 221 (holding that interest rate is material term in
context of contract to loan money).
MEETING OF THE MINDS ELEMENT OF CONTRACT FORMATION
Parties form a binding contract when the following elements are present: (1) an offer, (2)
an acceptance in strict compliance with the terms of the offer, (3) a meeting of the minds,
(4) each party's 530 consent to the terms, and (5) execution and delivery of the contract
with the intent that it be mutual and binding. Roman v. Roman, 193 S.W.3d 40, 50 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. filed); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Lopez, 93 S.W.3d 548,
555-56 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). "Meeting of the minds" describes
the mutual understanding and assent to the agreement regarding the subject matter and
the essential terms of the contract. Weynand v. Weynand, 990 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex.App.
-Dallas 1999, pet. denied). Mutual assent, concerning material, essential terms, is a
prerequisite to formation of a binding, enforceable contract. T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank
of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 221 (Tex.1992).
Potcinske v. McDONALD PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, 245 SW 3d 526 - Tex: Court of Appeals, Houston 2007
The Levin Law Group, PC v. Sigmon (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 21, 2010)(Sullivan)
(no breach of agreement to mediate on specific terms that were not agreed to, silence not assent, no meeting of
the minds on cancellation fee, unforceable contract not formed)
Appellant, the Levin Law Group, P.C. (“LLG”) filed suit against attorney Ernesto de Andre Sigmon for breach of an agreement to
mediate an underlying civil lawsuit. The trial court granted Sigmon’s motion for summary judgment after Sigmon asserted, inter
alia, (a) he did not accept the terms of the agreement, (b) he did not reschedule or cancel the mediation, and (c) the statute of frauds
operated to bar the alleged oral contract. We affirm the judgment.
AFFIRMED: Opinion by Justice Kent Sullivan
14-08-01165-CV The Levin Law Group, P.C. v. Ernesto De Andre Sigmon
Appeal from Co Civil Ct at Law No 4 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Roberta Anne Lloyd
Farragut Financial, et al. v. Capital One Auto (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Sep. 25, 2008)(Bland) (auto financing,
no contract formation, no meeting of the minds on terms)
AFFIRM TC JUDGMENT: Opinion by Justice Bland
Before Justices Taft, Jennings and Bland
01-07-00497-CV Farragut Financial, et al v. Capital One Auto, et al
Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No 1 of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Hon. Jack Cagle
TEXAS CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | HOUSTON COURTS OF APPEALS |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE