stating "the well-established rule that prospective profits from a new enterprise which has no history of profits are too remote and speculative to be included in compensatory damages" (quoting Southwest Bank & Trust Co. v. Executive Sportsman Ass'n, 477 S.W.2d 920, 929 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.))
How later courts described this case
- stating "the well-established rule that prospective profits from a new enterprise which has no history of profits are too remote and speculative to be included in compensatory damages" (quoting Southwest Bank & Trust Co. v. Executive Sportsman Ass'n, 477 S.W.2d 920, 929 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.))
- stating that if party fails to object to omission of question from special verdict form, it waives jury trial on that issue
- recognizing under Texas law seller's ability to "limit the buyer's warranty to repair and replacement and thus limit liability"
- “When the aggrieved party” chooses “not to sue for the anticipatory repudiation, . . . the contract remains in existence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Eugenio Riquelme Valdes, Inmobiliaria Kan Kun, S.A. v. Leisure Resource Group, Inc., Capitol Savings & Loan Association and United Service Corporation, 810 F.2d 1345 (1987)
481 F.2d 781, 801 (5th Cir.1973), overruled on other grounds in Valdes v. Leisure Resource Group, Inc., 810 F.2d 1345, 1350 n. 3 (5th Cir.1987);
The opinion
GEWIN, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result):
I concur in the result reached by my Brother Coleman in this case. In my view the district court committed errors with respect to its rulings and jury instructions as to the issues of liability and damages. Accordingly it is necessary for us to reverse the judgment and to remand the case for a new trial.