The JM Contracts Text includes an excerpt ofTA Operating Corp. v. Solar Applications Engineering, Inc., 191 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. Ct. App. 2005) Link article https://casetext.com/case/ta-operating-v-solar-app

[Section 9.6, p. 298]. The case concerns a dispute between a building contractor (Solar) and it's customer (TA) and turns on the interpretation of a contract provision as either a condition precedent or a covenant.

The case in your Text was subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court of Texas. A copy of the Supreme Court decision is here: Solar Applications Engineering, Inc. v. T.A. Operating Corp., 327 S.W.3d 104 (2010). Link Article https://casetext.com/case/solar-applications-v-ta-operating-corp

Please read the short excerpt of the Appellate court decision in your Text (TA Operating Corp. v. Solar Applications Engineering, Inc.) and then the Supreme Court decision overturning the Appellate court (Solar Applications Engineering, Inc. v. T.A. Operating Corp) and answer the following questions.

1. Why did Solar believe it was entitled to the contract balance here?
2. Why did the Appellate court determine that Solar should not have been awarded the contract damages that it claimed, even though it substantially complied?
3. What is the essential issue that the Supreme Court decided differently than the Appellate court had?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Why did Solar believe it was entitled to the contract balance here Solar likely believed it was enti... View the full answer