Hohenberg Bros. Co. v. George E. Gibbons & Co.
1976 Tex. LEXIS 217, 537 S.W.2d 1, 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 310 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Contractual provisions are generally construed as covenants rather than conditions precedent, especially when the intent is doubtful, a condition would impose an absurd or impossible result, or where strict enforcement would lead to a forfeiture.
Facts:
- George E. Gibbons & Company (Gibbons), a brokerage firm, purchased future cotton production directly from farmers and resold it to cotton merchants.
- In April 1973, Gibbons and T. A. Setliffe reached an oral agreement for Gibbons to purchase 295 acres of Setliffe's future cotton production.
- Gibbons immediately forwarded a written contract to Setliffe for his signature to confirm the oral agreement.
- Before Setliffe had signed his contract, Gibbons negotiated and signed a written contract with Hohenberg Brothers Company (Hohenberg) to resell the 295 acres of cotton at a higher price.
- In June 1973, George Gibbons died, having unsuccessfully tried to get Setliffe to sign the written contract confirming their oral agreement.
- The executor of Gibbons' estate, the Corpus Christi State National Bank, also unsuccessfully attempted to get a written confirmation from Setliffe.
- Setliffe steadfastly refused to deliver the cotton or sign an agreement under the terms offered by Gibbons.
- In September 1973, the Corpus Christi State National Bank informed Hohenberg Brothers that Setliffe did not intend to deliver the cotton that Gibbons had contracted to sell to Hohenberg.
Procedural Posture:
- Hohenberg Brothers Company brought suit for damages against George E. Gibbons and Company in trial court (court of first instance) for breach of contract for failure to deliver cotton.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, rendered a take-nothing judgment against Hohenberg Brothers Company, finding that the contract contemplated certain conditions precedent to Gibbons' liability which had not occurred.
- Hohenberg Brothers Company appealed to the court of civil appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The court of civil appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contract called for certain conditions precedent to Gibbons' liability and that the occurrence of such conditions had not been proven.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a contractual provision for the delivery of certain documents (compress warehouse receipts, samples, and classification cards) a condition precedent to a seller's liability to deliver cotton, or merely a covenant describing the timing of the delivery of those instruments to the buyer?
Opinions:
Majority - Denton, Justice
No, the "Shipment" clause in the contract between Gibbons and Hohenberg was not a condition precedent to Gibbons' liability to deliver cotton, but rather a description of the delivery of instruments to Hohenberg. The court stated that conditions precedent are not favored in law due to their harshness, and courts are inclined to construe contract provisions as covenants unless the language clearly indicates a condition, using terms like "if," "provided that," or "on condition that." When intent is doubtful, or a condition would lead to an absurd or impossible result, an agreement will be interpreted as creating a covenant to avoid forfeiture. Reading the contract as a whole, specifically the "Quantity," "Price," and "Quality" clauses, revealed that the instruments (warehouse receipts, samples, and Smith-Doxey classification cards) were related to determining the price Hohenberg was to pay for the cotton. Therefore, the receipt of these instruments by Gibbons was not a condition precedent to Gibbons' liability to deliver the cotton. Instead, the delivery of said instruments to Hohenberg was a condition precedent to Hohenberg's duty to make payment. Gibbons' inability to secure a binding agreement with Setliffe or to obtain the cotton at the anticipated price, was not a defense to the contract with Hohenberg, as his ability to obtain the cotton was not a condition to his promise to deliver.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the legal preference for interpreting contractual provisions as covenants rather than conditions precedent, particularly where ambiguity exists or where a condition would result in a forfeiture. It highlights the importance of precise drafting when parties intend to create a condition precedent, requiring explicit language like "if" or "on condition that." The ruling clarifies that a seller's inability to obtain goods at an anticipated price, or to secure a necessary sub-contract, does not automatically excuse performance if that ability was not an express condition to the primary contract. This encourages parties to explicitly allocate risks in contracts.
