DEWITT v. BOWERS, Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, San Antonio (1911)

FACTS: On Sunday, December 12, 1909, Bowers entered the Big Four Saloon, in Texico, New Mexico. During his time at the Big Four Saloon, Bowers was approached by Dewitt with a proposition to sell to him. Bowers, who had been drinking that day, accepted the proposition and paid Dewitt $2,000 for what he believed to be a sales agreement offering made by Dewitt to sell to Bowers the Saloon and its fixtures, wines, liquors, the house, and the plot of land which the Big Four Saloon sat on. However, Dewitt claimed he never offered the house or plot of land the Big Four Saloon sat on to Bowers because he was not the owner. Dewitt also claimed he said this in front of the bartender when discussing with Bowers. After discovering that Dewitt didn’t own the Big Four Saloon and its assets, Bowers demanded his $2,000 back from Dewitt within 24 hours.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY: At the trial court, Bowers sued Dewitt claiming he purchased the Big Four Saloon, its fixtures, house, and plot of land and didn’t receive the property after the agreement was completed. The trial court awarded Bowers $2,000 with interest at 6 percent per annum from December 12, 1909. Dewitt claimed he explained to Bowers that he didn’t include the house and plot of land at which the Big Four Saloon sat on in his proposition to Bowers because he wasn’t the owner of either. Dewitt appealed the case on June 14, 1911 to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

ISSUE(S): 

• Whether a contract can be legally binding if there’s a mistake in acknowledged subject matter between parties. 

• Whether a party being intoxicated at the time of signing the agreement is a basis for avoiding a contract.

HOLDING: 

• A contract cannot be legally binding if there was a mistake in acknowledged subject matter between the two parties. 

• A party being intoxicated at the time of signing the agreement is not a basis for avoiding the contract unless the intoxication impairs them to the level of not being of sound mind). 

REASONING: Given the two parties agreed to differentiating subject matters, there is no contract between the two parties. Although Bowers was legally intoxicated at the time of discussing and agreeing to the agreement which doesn’t relieve him of the contract, he didn’t understand the subject matter of the contract. To promulgate a legally binding contract in this case, the two parties would’ve had to agree to exact subject matters. Therefore, the court ruled that there is no contract between the two parties and Bowers to be entitled to a 6 percent interest per annum on his $2,000 payment on December 12, 1909. 

JUDGMENT: The Court of Civil Appeals of Texas ruled the trial court didn’t err in refusing the special charges requested by Dewitt. The court ruled to reverse the trial court’s judgment and remanded the cause.