- 21 -
date of the 1986 Act. Petitioners cite no authority for
that proposition. Nevertheless, we find it unnecessary to
decide whether State law controls under these circumstances
because each of the cases petitioners cite is
distinguishable.
Each of the State cases involves overt conduct between
two distinct parties to a contract clearly evidencing
mutual intent to change or alter the terms of the contract.
See Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Portilla, 879 S.W.2d 47
(Tex. 1994) (employer's failure to enforce antinepotism
policy for approximately 17 years); Highpoint of Montgomery
Corp. v. Vail, 638 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. App. 1982) (lender's
regular acceptance of late payments on a note for
approximately 11 years); Wendlandt v. Sommers Drug Stores
Co., 551 S.W.2d 488 (Tex. Civ. App. 1977) (landlord's
failure to object to late payments over a period of 1� to
2 years). In contrast, the parties to the notes in this
case did not engage in any conduct evidencing an intent
to renew, renegotiate, modify, or extend the terms of the
notes. As noted above, we are unable to find that
petitioner was even aware of the provisions in the notes
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011