A Texas Court of Appeals ruling has put an end to a legal battle over a shrimping boat contract involving Hien Nguyen and the Le family. The court's decision, issued on June 16, 2026, clarifies the complexities surrounding oral agreements in business dealings, especially in the context of a family-run business. This ruling affects Nguyen, who claimed he was misled in a deal to buy part of the shrimping boat Lucky Nikki.
The case, Hien Nguyen v. Lisa Le, Seiu Le, and Nancy Tran (docket number 01-24-00492-CV), centers on an alleged oral agreement for Nguyen to purchase a half-interest in the shrimping vessel. Nguyen contended that he reached an agreement with Lisa Le's father, Seiu Le, during a conversation in Vietnamese. However, Seiu Le denied any agreement, stating that their discussion was about sharing profits, not selling the boat.
Nguyen's claims were based on two main allegations: breach of an oral contract and fraud. He argued that he and the Le family had agreed to a partnership where he would pay $100,000 for half ownership of the boat and share profits from shrimping. The dispute escalated to a trial, where a jury found in favor of Nguyen, awarding him $151,595 in damages. However, the trial court later overturned this verdict, leading to the appeal.
At the heart of the case was the disagreement over whether a valid contract existed. Nguyen maintained that he had entered into an oral contract with Seiu Le, while the Le family argued that no such agreement was ever made. The trial court directed a verdict against Nguyen's fraud claim, but allowed the contract claim to proceed to the jury.
The jury's findings were mixed, with some members agreeing that Nguyen had entered into a contract with Seiu Le, while others found that Lisa and Nancy Tran had breached a contract they never entered into. This inconsistency raised questions about the validity of the jury's decision. Ultimately, the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), determining that the evidence did not support the damages awarded.
The court ruled, “The jury’s finding of damages therefore cannot stand.” It concluded that the evidence did not adequately demonstrate the value of the oral contract or any expenses incurred by Nguyen in attempting to mitigate damages. The court emphasized that for damages to be awarded, there must be proof of value as defined in the jury instructions, which was lacking in this case.
In its ruling, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The judges noted that while they supported the finding that Nguyen made an oral agreement with Seiu Le, the evidence did not support the damages claimed or the fraud allegations. Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson comprised the panel that issued the opinion.
This ruling has significant implications for future cases involving oral contracts, particularly in informal business settings. It underscores the importance of clear communication and documentation in agreements, especially when they involve substantial sums of money. The outcome affects not just the parties involved but also sets a precedent for similar disputes in Texas.
Moving forward, the ruling may deter individuals from relying solely on oral agreements without documentation, especially in business transactions. It serves as a reminder that legal enforceability often requires clear evidence of the terms agreed upon and the intentions of the parties involved.
As for the future of this case, it is unclear whether Nguyen will seek further legal action or if there are any related cases pending. The court's decision appears to be final unless an appeal is filed to a higher court.