The Texas Journal of Business Law

The Journal was originally called the Business Law Bulletin and was started in the early 1980's.  Search issues from 2011 to 2021. The Journal has not found an academic home since the COVID 19 pandemic and will consist of archives for the time being.

Volume 49, Issue No 2 (Fall 2020)

NO ASSUMPTION BY BUYER ENTITY OF SELLER ENTITY’S IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY LIABILITY––WHETHER AN ENTITY THAT PURCHASES A MANUFACTURER’S ASSETS ASSUMES OR AGREES TO ASSUME AN IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY THAT ATTACHED AND WAS NOT DISCLAIMED WHEN THE MANUFACTURER SOLD THE GOOD.
by Gina BrownJuly 19, 2024
The Court in Northland Industries v Kouba held that that the Buyer only assumed liabilities expressed in the Agreement. The record reflects no evidence to support that the Buyer agreed to assume the Seller’s implied warranty of merchantability. Thus, the Buyer will not be liable for beach of the implied warranty of merchantability because the Agreement failed to show that the Buyer agreed to take on such liability.

Article

Volume 49, Issue 3 (Spring 2021)

Non-Disclosure and Other Preliminary Agreements in Business Transactions
by bizlawMarch 28, 2021
A Confidentiality Agreement (also sometimes referred to as an Non-Disclosure Agreement) is typically the first stage for the due diligence process in a transaction. These agreements can effectively act as a standstill agreement and can take many different approaches including disclaiming reliance or being non-binding. Letters of Intent are an intermediate step between NDAs and definitive binding agreements. The Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. v. Enterprise Products Partners, L.P. makes clear that Texas embraces the principles of freedom of contract among sophisticated businesses, and that they can trust that their legal documents will be enforced as written. This means that in Texas companies can rely on conditions precedent to avoid an unintended partnership or joint venture, and those conditions precedent can be set forth in a confidentiality agreement, letter of intent or other preliminary agreement. This article includes a seller oriented confidentiality agreement and letter of intent.

Volume 49, Issue No 2 (Fall 2020)

Essay - Is California v Texas Taxing for Obamacare?
by Andrew OringerSeptember 1, 2020
The ACA now goes down a new road that would seem to belong in a theme park somewhere on Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. If in this game of Hold ‘Em the Texas court's invalidation of the ACA holds, it's anyone's guess as to where this whole thing lands. And even if Texas is reversed, the decision may invigorate serious political discussion regarding how best to go forward, particularly while the case is still winding its way through the courts.

Volume 49, Issue No 2 (Fall 2020)

Solar Lease Negotiations from the Landowner's Perspective
by F. Parks BrownSeptember 1, 2020
In examining the evolution of oil and gas leases and related energy industry agreements in the recorded public records, it is interesting to observe when certain clauses begin to appear and how they develop with the passage of time as additional agreements are drafted. These modifications almost always emerge to address concerns that were not apparent to the parties during the early days of the particular industry, but eventually became problematic as basic forms were applied in practice. In this context, necessity remains the mother of invention. In the same manner, it is anticipated that solar lease drafting practices will evolve to address lessons learned by landowners and lessees as a result of the first wave of widespread solar development in Texas. In the meantime, attorneys that represent landowners must anticipate potential problems by employing a creative approach that considers various hypothetical scenarios and outcomes for each unique client and tract of land. This requires a high degree of situational awareness and attention to detail, in addition to a base knowledge of how solar power is generated, stored, transported and marketed.

Volume 48, Issue No. 3 (Spring 2020)

Partner's Duty of Care -- Whether a Partner's Statutory Duty of Care Can Be Disclaimed
by Gabriel F. AlonzoApril 1, 2020
In Shannon Med Ctr v Triad Holdings III, LLC. ____S.W.3d ____, No. 14-18-00638-CV, 2019 WL 6606406 (Tex. App. -- Houston (14th Dist)), the Court of Appeals, citing Texas Business Organizations Code (Secs 152.206 and 152.002(b)(3)), held that while a partnership agreement may authorize contracts between a partnership and partners or their affiliates, but a partner entering into those contracts must still comply with the duty of care charged by statute.

Volume 48, Issue No. 3 (Spring 2020)

Liability of Parent Corporation -- Whether the parent is liable for the actions of its subsidiary when the parent does not perpetrate fraud
by Sharrissa StrattonApril 1, 2020
In R&M Mixed Beverage Consultants, Inc. v Safe Harbor Benefits, Inc. 578 S.W.3d 218 (Tex.App. - El Paso 2019, no pet.), the Court of Appeals cites the Texas Supreme Court for the proposition that there must be evidence that one of the corporations was using the other for purpose of perpetrating actual fraud for the defendant's direct personal benefit. The Court found that the record showed no evidence of actual fraud and therefore the parent would not be liable for the subsidiary's action.

Volume 48, Issue No. 3 (Spring 2020)

Out-of-State Privileges for Internet Sales after Wayfair
by Calvin H. JohnsonApril 1, 2020
In South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its prior decisions in Quill and Bella Hess to allow a state to collect sales tax on internet sales even though the vendor has no “brick and mortar” store, warehouse or other physical presence in the state. Texas has been losing an estimated $1.1 billion a year in tax collections from the old physical-presence requirement. Texas needs to exploit the new rule now. So do other states. The money would be well spent for the highest-priority state needs. The revenue would also just come from actually collecting tax from people who are supposed to be paying tax already, but don’t. In-state Texas merchants who have been withholding sales tax will love the new level-playing field

Volume 48, Issue No. 3 (Spring 2020)

A New Trend in Securities Fraud: Punishing People Who Do Bad Things
by Joseph T. McClureApril 1, 2020
This article seeks to articulate a distinct view of federal securities law as it is increasingly used in non-traditional enforcement actions commenced to punish corporate bad behavior. This paper argues that these non-traditional enforcement mechanisms should be viewed with skepticism. This skepticism should not be misinterpreted as cynicism, as the author believes that these non-traditional enforcement actions are beneficial vehicles to accomplish the admirable governmental objective of “punishing people who do bad things.” However, the author recognizes that such use of securities law does not fall into a category of clearly defined criminal law and carries a significant risk of abuse. The author also recognizes the “admirable governmental objective” may be thwarted when it comes to private companies. Finally, the author is uneasy with the societal values conveyed when the government sanctions corporate misbehavior in the name of protecting shareholders from deception.

Volume 48, Issue No. 3 (Spring 2020)

Remaining or Going Private: Traditional and New Rationales
by Patrick MuldoonApril 1, 2020
The going private transaction has been popular in the past and will likely continue in popularity, given the number of startup “exits.” In the alternative, companies could continue to remain private, as venture capital funding and mega-rounds give companies a way to operate privately and their founders to retain control. Traditional rationales were centered around public speculation and filing or disclosure requirements. I suggest that new rationales include control by founder/CEOs, although it is hard to be sure. In the future, there could be new trends, less founder-centric companies, and more rationales for remaining, or going, private.

Volume 48, Issue No. 3 (Spring 2020)

Attachment E - Synchronization License for Copyrighted Works
by Buck McKinneyApril 1, 2020
This is a synchronization license for a copyrighted work. This is document 6 of 6.

Volume 48, Issue No. 3 (Spring 2020)

Attachment D - Movie Synchronization and Performing Rights License
by Buck McKinneyApril 1, 2020
An example of a license to a motion picture. This is document 5 of 6.

Volume 48, Issue No. 3 (Spring 2020)

Attachment C - Application for an HFA Licensing Account
by Buck McKinneyApril 1, 2020
This form is to create a licensing account with HFA for the manufacture and distribution of CDs, Audio Cassettes, LP s, DPD’s, Ringtones etc. within the U.S. If you are interested in licensing music represented by HFA, please contact Newmedia@harryfox.com and describe your proposed digital use. This is document 4 of 6.

Volume 48, Issue No. 3 (Spring 2020)

Attachment B - Mechanical License Agreement
by Buck McKinneyApril 1, 2020
This is a sample license agreement for a composition of music. This is document 3 of 6.

Volume 48, Issue No. 3 (Spring 2020)

Attachment A - ASCAP Rate Schedule and Statement of Operating Policies
by Buck McKinneyApril 1, 2020
This document includes the actual rate schedule and operating policies of ASCAP. This document is part 2 of 6.

Volume 48, Issue No. 3 (Spring 2020)

Creating The Sound Of Our Lives
by Buck McKinneyMarch 1, 2020
A Practical Overview of Music Licensing is presented by Buck McKinney. This article and the accompanying session address fundamental concepts involved in music licensing, several common music licensing scenarios, and practical tips for locating rights owners and administrators. This is document 1 of 6.

2014 Fall TJBL Files

2014 Fall_Ricks_Twisted Veil of TX LLCs.pdf
by 5ccf4d57817March 22, 2025

2014 Fall TJBL Files

2014 Fall_Kosturakis_Intellectual Property 101.pdf
by 5ccf4d57817March 22, 2025

2014 Fall TJBL Files

2014 Fall_Hicks_Note_Kahn v M&F Worldwide Corp.pdf
by 5ccf4d57817March 22, 2025

2014 Fall TJBL Files

2014 Fall_Guzik_Fed Pre-emption and Future of Capital Formation for Sm Business.pdf
by 5ccf4d57817March 22, 2025

2014 Fall TJBL Files

2014 Fall_Greenberg_Wolfe_Halliborton II.pdf
by 5ccf4d57817March 22, 2025

2014 Fall TJBL Files

2014 Fall_Ehlert_Note_Kennebrew v Harris.pdf
by 5ccf4d57817March 22, 2025

2014 Fall TJBL Files

2014 Fall_Egan_Confidentiality Agmts Contracts with Long Teeth.pdf
by 5ccf4d57817March 22, 2025

2014 Fall TJBL Files

2014 Fall_Dalm_Drafting Contracts-Avoiding Ethics Issues.pdf
by 5ccf4d57817March 22, 2025

2014 Fall TJBL Files

Volume 46, Issue 1 of the Texas Journal of Business Law
by 5ccf4d57817March 22, 2025

2011 Spring TJBL Files

2011 Spring TJBL Volume 44, Issue 1-Entire Issue
by 5ccf4d57817March 22, 2025