Furthermore, if it is clear the parties intend that time is of the essence to a contract, timely performance is essential to a party's right to require performance by the other party. By March 17, Driver stated that it was still not ready to resume work on the pipeline, so Mustang's project engineer certified Driver to be in default under the contract. 2306 S. Battleground Road La Porte, Texas 77571 . Mustang Pipeline N Construction LLC is a leading provider of integrated oilfield and pipeline construction services. Id. The party seeking to recover the cost of completion in a breach of contract case has the burden to prove that the damages sought are reasonable. Applications include pipeline drying, electronics manufacturing, food or drug production and refinery applications. See Dallas Ry. Mustang Fuel Corporation is a privately held company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, along with its wholly-owned subsidiaries Mustang Gas Products, LLC, and Mustang Fuel Marketing Company. Copyright © 2012 by Mustang Pipeline N Construction LLC. In January 1997, Mustang entered into a contract under which Driver was to construct the northern 100 miles of a 200 mile pipeline from Mont Belvieu to Longview, Texas. Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. Although Driver had workers, equipment and supervision on the job site, it accomplished only minimal pipeline construction. If you are looking for an experienced pipeline construction and oilfield services contractor, contact Mustang Pipeline N Construction LLC. With tight deadlines, budgets, equipment demands and much more, you need a company that you can trust to do what it takes to successfully complete your project.
We rank among the largest international pipeline contractors, with a strong record of pipes laid around the world under the most difficult environmental and logistical conditions, such as deserts, mountains (up to 5,000 m), forests, jungles, swamps and frozen steppes.
69 S.W.3d at 787. TEX. Mustang also argues that the trial court erred by granting Driver's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and entering a judgment that did not award Mustang any damages. Dist. The email address cannot be subscribed. 2) Was Mustang Pipeline Company justified or not justified in terminating Driver Pipeline Company? Driver counterclaimed for Mustang's wrongful termination of the contract. As the court of appeals noted, there was evidence that the contract entered into with Sunland was substantially higher than what Sunland initially bid in an attempt to obtain the job. ON PATTERN JURY CHARGES, STATE BAR OF TEX., TEXAS PATTERN JURY CHARGES-BUSINESS, CONSUMER, EMPLOYMENT PJC 101.22 (2002). We recommend using
CIV. Mustang argues that the jury's answer regarding Driver's breach rendered the jury's answer regarding Mustang's wrongful termination immaterial, because once a party has breached it cannot later sue on the contract. D.E.W., Inc. v. Depco Forms, Inc., 827 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1992, no writ).
In late February 1997, when Mustang realized Driver was behind on the construction schedule, it asked for assurances from Driver that the work would be completed by the deadline. Driver argued there was no evidence of probative force to sustain the jury's answers on either the breach of contract or damages questions. The parties agreed on a fourteen-week schedule, working eleven hours per day, seven days a week. As this Court held in Gossett, however, “it is now well settled that proof of the amounts charged or paid does not raise an issue of reasonableness, and recovery of such expenses will be denied in the absence of evidence showing that the charges are reasonable.” Id. 69 S.W.3d at 789. Please try again. We are hardworking and committed to exceeding your expectations. Evidence exists to prove, as a matter of law, that time was a material element of the contract. at 790. Charges and terms in addition to those listed here may apply. Contact us for any commercial and procurement request. Mustang's accountant addressed in detail the amount it spent to complete the work. A party is entitled to recover attorney's fees in addition to the amount of a valid claim based on a written contract. We reverse in part and render judgment that Driver take nothing. It reasoned that because the jury question did not ask whether the breach was material, the trial court was not required to hold the breach material as a matter of law. The court of appeals was correct in holding that a party is released from further obligation under the contract only if the other party materially breached. See TEX.R. The court of appeals noted that although Mustang provided substantial evidence of its expenses, the “weight of authority indicates that the mere evidence of amounts paid-without more-is no evidence that those amounts were reasonable.” Id. Mustang petitioned this court for review, asking us to reverse the court of appeals' judgment and render judgment for Mustang, or in the alternative, grant a new trial. We agree with the court of appeals' conclusion that Mustang failed to provide evidence that its out-of-pocket costs were reasonable. During the bidding process, Mustang stressed that time was of the essence and that the pipeline construction had to be completed no later than April 30, 1997. The court of appeals rejected Mustang's argument. Mustang asked the trial court to disregard the jury's finding that Mustang wrongfully terminated the contract and the damages awarded to Driver. Mustang directs us to testimony provided by its expert on damages to argue that it established that its damages were reasonable. You'll Be Glad You Chose Us. When you contract services with us you can expect the highest level of performance. Quality, environment and safety starts with the procurement process.
Gossett, 294 S.W.2d at 382-83. PRAC. P. 277 (“The court may submit a question disjunctively when it is apparent from the evidence that one or the other of the conditions or facts inquired about necessarily exists.”); COMM.