Volpe v. Schlobohm
614 S.W.2d 615, 1981 Tex. App. LEXIS 3488 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A partnership agreement may be rescinded on the grounds of mutual mistake when the parties harbor different understandings regarding a material term of the contract, the written expression of the agreement is ambiguous on that term, and there was consequently no meeting of the minds.
Facts:
- Charles and Joneen Schlobohm were engaged in the food distributing business, which included a Pepperidge Farms franchise.
- Robert M. Volpe, who held a Stella D'Oro franchise, became associated with the Schlobohms as a jobber.
- On January 28, 1978, the Schlobohms, Volpe, and a third party, Edward Wright, met to discuss forming a partnership.
- The parties accepted and agreed to an unsigned partnership agreement based on notes from their discussion on February 1, 1978.
- The Schlobohms believed their valuable Pepperidge Farms franchise was to be excluded from the partnership assets.
- Volpe understood that all franchises, including the Schlobohms' Pepperidge Farms franchise and his own Stella D'Oro franchise, were to be contributed as partnership assets.
- Despite the disagreement, revenues from the disputed Pepperidge Farms franchises were deposited into the partnership bank account and divided among the partners.
- Disagreements over the contribution of the franchises and the buyout of Wright's interest caused the business relationship to deteriorate.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles H. and Joneen Lou Schlobohm sued Robert M. Volpe in a Texas trial court, seeking rescission of their partnership agreement.
- Volpe filed a counterclaim seeking dissolution of the partnership, an accounting, and damages.
- Following a bench trial (trial by judge without a jury), the trial court entered a judgment for the Schlobohms, rescinding the partnership.
- The trial court's judgment awarded Volpe $54,083.60, the stipulated value of his interest upon rescission.
- Volpe, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a mutual mistake, where parties to a partnership agreement have different understandings of whether key assets are to be contributed to the partnership, justify the equitable remedy of rescission?
Opinions:
Majority - Cornelius, Chief Justice
Yes, a mutual mistake where parties have different understandings of a material term justifies rescission. The court found that while the trial court characterized the issue as a unilateral mistake, it was more accurately a form of mutual mistake. A mutual mistake sufficient for rescission can exist not only when parties share the same misconception, but also when their mistakes relate to the same material matter, even if the mistakes themselves are different. Here, the Schlobohms believed the Pepperidge Farms franchises were excluded, while Volpe believed they were included. This fundamental misunderstanding about the subject matter of the contract—a material term—meant there was no 'meeting of the minds.' Because the written agreement was ambiguous on this critical point, a valid contract was never truly formed, making rescission the proper remedy.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and expands the doctrine of mutual mistake in Texas contract law. It establishes that 'mutual mistake' does not strictly require both parties to hold the identical erroneous belief. Instead, it can encompass situations where parties have fundamentally different understandings about the same material, ambiguous term. This holding reinforces the foundational contract principle that a 'meeting of the minds' is essential for contract formation. The decision provides a basis for parties to rescind agreements that appear valid but lack genuine assent on a core element, impacting how courts will analyze formation defects arising from ambiguous terms.
