Texas Attorney General Opinion: GA-0247 Page: 6 of 11
11 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The Honorable David R. Austin - Page 6
2377-85. Prior to 1985, various statutes governed county purchasing, many of which applied to
counties, municipalities, and other political subdivisions. For example, the statutory predecessor to
the municipal purchasing provisions, former article 2368a, now chapter 252 of the Local
Government Code, applied to both cities and counties. See, e.g., Corbin v. Collin County Comm 'rs
Court, 651 S.W.2d 55, 56 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1984, no writ) (addressing whether a county awarded
a contract in compliance with former article 2368a). Article 2368a, section 2(d) provided:
Any and all contracts or agreements hereafter made by any
county or city in this state, without complying with the terms of this
section, shall be void and shall not be enforceable in any court of this
state and the performance of same and the payment of any money
thereunder may be enjoined by any property taxpaying citizen of such
county or city.
See Bond and Warrant Law of 193 1 , Act of May 21, 1931, 42d Leg., R.S., ch. 163, 1931 Tex. Gen.
Laws 269, 270-71, as amended by Act of May 30, 1981, 67th Leg., R.S., ch. 505, 2, 1981 Tex.
Gen. Laws 2164, 2164-65. Statutes that predated article 2368a, former articles 2368 and 2268b,
contained similar provisions. See Limestone County v. Knox, 234 S.W. 131 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas
1921, no writ) (addressing similar language in former article 2268b and concluding that a contract
was void because the commissioners court awarded it without complying with statutory
requirements). A contract that is void under the terms of such a statute is a nullity:
The commissioners' court . .. being without power or authority to
make the contract in the first instance without compliance with the
terms of the statute, the contract was void and could not be vitalized
and made binding and enforceable by ratification or otherwise. ...
[A] contract which the law denounces as void is necessarily
no contract whatever and the acts of the parties in an effort to create
one in no wise bring about a change of their legal status. A void
contract is a mere nullity, and is obligatory on neither party to it. "It
requires no disaffirmance to avoid it and cannot be validated by
ratification."
Id. at 134.
In 1985, the legislature adopted the County Purchasing Act, amended article 2368a and other
laws applicable to counties and other entities to remove counties from their scope, and repealed
many inconsistent county purchasing provisions. See Act of May 27, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 641,
} 1 (enacting County Purchasing Act), 2-4, 8 (amending other laws to delete counties), 11
(repealing county purchasing laws), 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 2377, 2377-84.
Although the County Purchasing Act, unlike Local Government Code sections 252.061 and
271.028 and provisions in former laws applicable to county purchasing, does not contain language
stating that a contract awarded in violation of its provisions is void, no judicial or attorney general
opinion since 1985 has addressed this change's potential significance. The 1985 legislative history(GA-0247)
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: GA-0247, text, September 8, 2004; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth275143/m1/6/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.