Rosenthal v. Executive Car Leasing Co. of Houston

3 Citing cases

  1. Wesco Distrib. v. Westport Group

    150 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. App. 2004)   Cited 37 times
    Holding notice must be timely, not that notice to the prime contractor by first-class regular mail precludes recovery

    Tunnell v. Texas Real Estate Comm'n, 761 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, no writ); Texas Real Estate Comm'n v. Howard, 538 S.W.2d 429, 433 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.). A lessor's contractual duty to notify by mail that did not specify that proper postage be affixed was not satisfied by a letter that actually arrived at the correct address, but with postage due of $0.50. Rosenthal v. Executive Car Leasing Co. of Houston, 435 S.W.2d 168, 169-70 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1968, no writ.) In these cases, insufficient postage meant ineffective notice.

  2. Williams v. Back

    624 S.W.2d 272 (Tex. App. 1981)   Cited 10 times
    In Williams v. Back, 624 S.W.2d 272 (Tex.App. — Austin 1981, no writ), the opinion notes that the facts are different from those in Portec and Killebrew.

    Where the debtor does not receive the writing alleged to constitute a "presentment," there is no presentment within the meaning of Article 2226. See Rosenthal v. Executive Car Leasing Co., 435 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 1968, no writ). Appellant clearly was entitled to obtain a jury finding as to attorney's fees relative to the Georgetown claim; with equal clarity, however, he was not entitled to such a finding relative to the Hearne claim.

  3. Texas Real Estate Commission v. Howard

    538 S.W.2d 429 (Tex. Civ. App. 1976)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that where statute provided for notice by registered mail, notice was effective when properly stamped, addressed, and mailed—even though returned “unclaimed”

    No Texas cases directly in point have been found. In Rosenthal Executive Car Leasing Co. of Houston, 435 S.W.2d 168 (Tex.Civ.App. — Houston (1st Dist.) 1968, no writ history), this court considered a contract which contained a provision requiring the lessor of an automobile to notify lessee of the amount of an appraisal of the leased automobile after it had been returned to the lessor which notice would constitute an offer by the lessor to sell the leased vehicle at the appraised price. The lease stated that the notification could be by mailing such notice to lessee at the address stated in the lease, 'or by any other method deemed by lessor to give actual notice to lessee.