In 1995, Garden Ridge and Fiesta Mart signed a commercial lease for Garden Ridge to lease space in the Fiesta Mart Mall. Article VI of the lease agreement concerned the common area of the shopping centre, in part as follows: Without Garden Ridge, which seeks an appropriate remedy before the court, “we will not turn a presumption or sanctionable event into a fact concluding for summary assessment.” Kang v. Hyundai Corp. (U.S.A.), 992 S.W.2d 499, 502 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet), meru agreement v. Huerta, 136 S.W.3d 383, 389 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2004, no pet.). The charge remained on Garden Ridge to definitively justify its damages for summary judgment. Given that the statements are filled with evidence that some of United Equities` management activities – for which the fee was paid, we must conclude that Garden Ridge was unable to conclusively prove that its damage was consistent with the total administrative costs paid. Unlike Enterprise-Laredo Associates, where the discovery rule waived restrictions until the tenant`s termination by significantly increasing CAM`s fees for one year, see 839 S.W.2d to 826, 838, it is indisputable that Garden Ridge first learned of the new administrative tax outside of the statute of limitations. Specifically, Willis testified under oath that Fiesta Mart never collected an administrative fee, and Clear Lake began collecting administration fees in 2003.

We are entitled to say that a tenant who acts with due diligence could have detected this type of injury by asking Clear Lake for information necessary to verify the performance of the contract. The application of the discovery exemption regime in such cases would defeat the purpose of the restrictions, since Garden Ridge had a contractual right to review and refused to exercise that right for many years, although a new and substantial fee was levied. See HECI Exploration Co., 982 P.W.2d at 887-88 (“A licensee who does not apply for years cannot sue for offences that could have been found within the statute of limitations if proper diligence was required.” The De Violation Tracker site was created with the help of Rich Puchalsky of Grassroots Connection. “An injury is not detected by nature if, by nature, despite the duty of care, it cannot be detected within the prescribed statute of limitations.” “Id. to 31314 (quote from Wagner – Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732, 73435 (Tex.2001)). The duty of care requires the parties to protect their own interests. Id. at 314. Therefore, due diligence may “ask a contractor for the necessary information to verify the performance of the contract.” Id. “If a contractor responds to such a request with false information, the delimitation may be delayed due to a fraudulent cover-up.” Id.

“But not asking for such information is not due diligence.” identification. Whether there is a violation by nature is decided on a categorical basis and not on a case-by-case basis; The focus is on whether some kind of injury could have been detected and not a particular injury.┬áId.13 Garden Ridge relies exclusively on Sheplers` decision, in which the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, without citing authority, “transferred the charge to the defendant to show that the impugned expenses were related to the cam” because the defendant had “full control over all records related to CAM`s expenses.” 63 F.Supp.2d to 1314.