## Facts

- Bartush-Schnitzius Foods Co. planned to produce seafood dips requiring production temperatures no higher than 38°F, below the capability of its existing system.
- Bartush hired Cimco Refrigeration, Inc. to install a new refrigeration system; Cimco provided an offer letter with three options that did not specify a temperature range.
- Bartush selected the most expensive option and paid Cimco $306,758, leaving an unpaid balance of $113,400.
- When operated at a 35°F setting, the system experienced ice formation on fan motors because the defrost unit was not designed for that temperature, causing overheating, failures, and temperature spikes into the 50s and 60s.
- After communications about repairs did not produce what Bartush considered a workable plan, Bartush withheld further payment and retained an independent refrigeration engineer.
- The engineer recommended a warm-glycol defrost unit; Bartush hired another contractor to install it for $168,079, after which the system could maintain 35°F.
- Cimco sued for the unpaid contract balance; Bartush counterclaimed for breach of contract and asserted Cimco’s prior material breach excused further payment.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury’s finding that Cimco breached first but not materially meant Bartush’s nonpayment was not excused.
2. Whether the jury’s awards to both parties required a judgment reflecting both recoveries (subject to offset) rather than an all-or-nothing judgment for one side.
3. Whether the trial court and court of appeals failed to render judgment in accordance with the jury’s verdict.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded.
- The Court held that neither the trial court nor the court of appeals properly implemented the jury’s verdict.
- Given the jury’s findings, Cimco’s breach was non-material: Bartush could recover damages for defective performance, but Bartush still owed the remaining contract balance.
- Both parties were entitled to the amounts the jury awarded—$168,079 to Bartush and $113,400 to Cimco—subject to offset and any unresolved appellate challenges.
- The case was remanded for the court of appeals to address issues it had not reached, including challenges to Bartush’s damage award.

## Legal Principles

- In Texas contract law, a non-material breach gives rise to damages but does not excuse the other party’s continued performance.
- A party that commits a non-material breach is not barred from recovering for the other party’s subsequent breach.
- Courts must render judgment consistent with the complete set of jury findings, including mutual breach findings and competing damage awards, typically through offset rather than awarding all relief to one side.
- A judgment that disregards the jury’s express finding on materiality, or nullifies one party’s damages award without resolving preserved challenges, fails to effectuate the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court held that because Cimco’s breach was found non-material, Bartush remained obligated to pay the contract balance while also retaining a damages remedy for Cimco’s deficient performance; the judgment had to reflect both jury awards (with offset), so the case was remanded for further appellate review of unresolved issues.


Bartush-Schnitzius Foods Co. v. Cimco Refrigeration, Inc., 518 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2017)