VILLARRE - Daniza S. VILLARREAL, Appellant, v. ART...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Daniza S. VILLARREAL, Appellant, v. ART INSTITUTE OF HOUSTON, INC., Appellee. No. 13-99-511-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi. May 11, 2000. On appeal from the 270th District Court of Harris County, Texas. Before Chief Justice SEERDEN and Justices DORSEY and YAÑEZ. OPINION DORSEY, Justice. Daniza Villarreal enrolled in the photography program at the Art Institute of Houston, Inc. ("The Art Institute"). The Art Institute is a technical college which offers various degree programs, but does not offer transferrable college credit courses. Villarreal contends that its representatives made numerous false representations to her regarding the program, the school, and the costs. She took out guaranteed student loans in order to pay for the program. She did not complete the program, and did not repay the loans as required. She sued The Art Institute of Houston, Inc. for fraud and breach of contract. Her case was tried to a jury. After the close of Villarreal's case, the trial court directed verdict for The Art Institute on the breach of contract claim. The jury found for The Art Institute on the fraud claims, and a take nothing judgment was entered against Villarreal. She appeals this judgment, contending that the trial court erred in directing verdict against her on the contract claims, and that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's finding on the fraud claims. BREACH OF CONTRACT We hold the trial court did not err in directing verdict against Villarreal on her breach of contract claims. Villarreal contends that her contract with The Art Institute was partly written and partly oral, and alleges that The Art Institute breached the contract in three ways: (1) failing to provide her with unlimited use of its photography department facilities and equipment; (2) failing to provide her with college credits that could be transferred to another college or university; and (3) failing to provide her with an associate's degree. Conversely, The Art Institute contends that its contract with Villarreal--in its entirety--was embodied in one document, the Enrollment Agreement. The Art Institute argues that it did not breach the express terms of that contract, and that parol evidence is not admissible to alter its terms. It appears the trial court granted directed verdict on that basis. Standard of Review for Directed Verdict A directed verdict is appropriate when reasonable minds can draw only one conclusion from the evidence. > Collora v. Navarro, 574 S .W.2d 65, 68 (Tex.1978); > Villegas v. Griffin Industries, 975 S.W .2d 745, 748-49 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1998, no writ). Where the plaintiff fails to present evidence in support of a fact essential to her right to recover or where a defense against the plaintiff's cause of action is conclusively proved or admitted, a directed verdict for the defendant is proper. > Villegas, 975 S.W.2d at 749. On review, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict was rendered and disregard all contrary evidence and inferences. > Qantel Bus.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2011 for the course EMGT 5130 taught by Professor Jeong during the Fall '11 term at UH Clear Lake.

Page1 / 6

VILLARRE - Daniza S. VILLARREAL, Appellant, v. ART...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online