Hannon, Inc. v. Scott

16 Citing cases

  1. Lee v. Samsung Elecs. Am.

    4:21-cv-1321 (S.D. Tex. Jun. 28, 2023)

    (Materiality under the TDTPA depends on “whether a reasonable person would attach importance to and would be induced to act on the information in determining his choice of actions in the transaction in question.”) (quoting Hannon, Inc. v. Scott, No. 02-10-00012-CV, 2011 WL 1833106, at *6 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth May 12, 2011, pet. denied)); Morchem Indus., Inc. v. Rockin Essentials LLC, No. 1:20-CV-24735-KMM, 2021 WL 5014105, at *8 (S.D. Fla. June 16, 2021) (Under FDUTPA, “deception occurs if there is a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumer's detriment.”)

  2. Grisel v. Everest Int'l

    No. 02-19-00401-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 10, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    ) (op. on reh'g) (quoting Hannon, Inc. v. Scott, No. 02-10-00012-CV, 2011 WL 1833106, at *8 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth May 12, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.))

  3. Visa Inc. v. Sally Beauty Holdings, Inc.

    651 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. App. 2021)   Cited 4 times

    A valid fraud claim includes six elements: (1) the defendant made a material, actionable representation; (2) the representation was false; (3) the defendant knew the representation was false or made it recklessly without any knowledge of its truth; (4) the defendant intended to induce the plaintiff to act upon the representation; (5) the plaintiff actually and justifiably relied upon the false representation; and (6) the plaintiff thereby suffered injury.SeeJPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Orca Assets G.P., L.L.C. , 546 S.W.3d 648, 653 (Tex. 2018) (listing in four elements); Aquaplex, Inc. v. Rancho La Valencia, Inc. , 297 S.W.3d 768, 774 (Tex. 2009) (listing in six elements); Hannon, Inc. v. Scott , No. 02-10-00012-CV, 2011 WL 1833106, at *6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 12, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (listing in five elements); O'Connor’s Texas Causes of Action ch. 12-A, § 1.1 (2021) (listing in seven elements). To satisfy these elements, Visa's live counterpetition alleged that (1) in Sally Beauty's 2014 AOC and other AOCs, Sally Beauty represented that it was in compliance with PCI DSS protocols and that it would remain in compliance; (2) Sally Beauty was not in compliance with the PCI DSS protocols at the time of the 2014 AOC, and Sally Beauty did not intend to comply; (3) Sally Beauty knew that it was not in compliance and had no intention of complying; (4) Sally Beauty submitted the AOC to Visa and intended for Visa to rely on it; (5) justifiably relying on the AOC, Visa did not assess noncompliance fees, and it allowed Sally Beauty to continue accessing the Visa network; and (6) as a result of such reliance, when Sally Beauty's noncompliance facilitated a hack, Visa was forced to spend money investigating, mitigating, and repairing the harm to its network.

  4. Spicer v. Maxus Healthcare Partners

    616 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. App. 2020)   Cited 25 times
    Recognizing attorney's-fee award must be supported by specific, fair-notice pleading that raises grounds to recover fees and costs

    One does not have to conduct an independent investigation or audit to justifiably rely on another party's false, material representation when the misrepresentations are not "outlandish, preposterous, or so patently and obviously false" that one would have to close his or her eyes to avoid discovering their falseness. Hannon, Inc. v. Scott , No. 02-10-00012-CV, 2011 WL 1833106, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 12, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that the factfinder was entitled to evaluate the plaintiff's individual characteristics, abilities, and appreciation of the facts and circumstances at or before the time of the defendant's misrepresentations to determine whether there was actual reliance on those misrepresentations). The record is replete with examples of Brady's misrepresentations and omissions with regard to the financial information that she provided to Maxus.

  5. Spicer v. Maxus Healthcare Partners

    No. 02-17-00449-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 1, 2020)

    One does not have to conduct an independent investigation or audit to justifiably rely on another party's false, material representation when the misrepresentations are not "outlandish, preposterous, or so patently and obviously false" that one would have to close his or her eyes to avoid discovering their falseness. Hannon, Inc. v. Scott, No. 02-10-00012-CV, 2011 WL 1833106, at *8 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 12, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (noting that the factfinder was entitled to evaluate the plaintiff's individual characteristics, abilities, and appreciation of the facts and circumstances at or before the time of the defendant's misrepresentations to determine whether there was actual reliance on those misrepresentations). The record is replete with examples of Brady's misrepresentations and omissions with regard to the financial information that she provided to Maxus.

  6. Apple-Sport Chevrolet, Inc. v. Rolston

    No. 10-17-00046-CV (Tex. App. May. 23, 2018)

    If we determine that a part of a damages award lacks sufficient evidentiary support, our proper course is to suggest a remittitur of that part of the damages. See Larson v. Cactus Util. Co., 730 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Tex. 1987); see also Hannon, Inc. v. Scott, No. 02-10-00012-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3624, at *30 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 12, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.). The party prevailing in the trial court should be given the option of accepting the remittitur or having the cause remanded.

  7. Credit Suisse AG v. Claymore Holdings, LLC

    584 S.W.3d 18 (Tex. App. 2018)   Cited 6 times

    New Paradigm Software Corp. v. New Era of Networks, Inc. , 107 F. Supp. 2d 325, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).See alsoHannon, Inc. v. Scott , No. 02-10-00012-CV, 2011 WL 1833106, at *9 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 12, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ("Upon rescission, the rights and liabilities of the parties are extinguished; any consideration paid is returned, together with such further special damage or expense as may have been reasonably incurred by the party wronged; and the parties are restored to their respective positions as if no contract had ever existed.").

  8. Wallace v. AmTrust Ins. Co. of Kan., Inc.

    No. 10-14-00209-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 2, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    And because AmTrust was not entitled to summary judgment on their misrepresentation defenses, we cannot say that it was entitled to rescission of the insurance policies at this time. See, e.g., Hannon, Inc. v. Scott, No. 02-10-00012-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3624, at **27-27 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 12, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ("Rescission is an equitable remedy that extinguishes legally valid contracts that must be set aside because of, among other things, fraud. Upon rescission, the rights and liabilities of the parties are extinguished; any consideration paid is returned, together with such further special damage or expense as may have been incurred by the party wronged; and the parties are restored to their respective positions as if no contract had ever existed.").

  9. Wallace v. Amtrust Ins. Co.

    No. 10-14-00209-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 14, 2016)

    And because AmTrust was not entitled to summary judgment on their misrepresentation defenses, we cannot say that it was entitled to rescission of the insurance policies at this time. See, e.g., Hannon, Inc. v. Scott, No. 02-10-00012-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 3624, at **27-27 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 12, 2011, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ("Rescission is an equitable remedy that extinguishes legally valid contracts that must be set aside because of, among other things, fraud. Upon rescission, the rights and liabilities of the parties are extinguished; any consideration paid is returned, together with such further special damage or expense as may have been incurred by the party wronged; and the parties are restored to their respective positions as if no contract had ever existed.").

  10. Ginn v. NCI Building Systems, Inc.

    472 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. App. 2015)   Cited 53 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding trial court's discretion is subject to requirement that questions submitted: control the disposition of the case, be raised by the pleadings and the evidence, and properly submit the disputed issues for the jury's determination

    While a trial court may not grant relief to a party in the absence of pleadings to support that relief, Texas courts have traditionally construed pleadings liberally, and in the case of rescission, courts have held that "factual allegations in the petition, coupled with a prayer for general relief, are sufficient to support a decree granting rescission." Green Tree Acceptance, Inc. v. Pierce, 768 S.W.2d 416, 421 (Tex.App.–Tyler 1989, no writ) ; see alsoHannon, Inc. v. Scott, No. 02–10–00012–CV, 2011 WL 1833106, at *10 (Tex.App.–Fort Worth May 12, 2011, pet. denied) (mem.op.); Omega Energy Corp. v. Gulf States Petroleum Corp., No. 13–03–275–CV, 2005 WL 977573, at *3 (Tex.App.–Corpus Christi Apr. 28, 2005, pet. denied) (mem.op.); Nelson v. Najm, 127 S.W.3d 170, 177 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) ("Customarily, a general prayer for relief will support any relief raised by the evidence that is consistent with the allegations and causes of action stated in the petition."). Further, when the claims and defenses are those which contemplate a particular remedy, a party may be entitled to that remedy despite a failure to specifically plead for such relief.