Mediators Better Know How To Contract

14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (“It is elementary that an acceptance must not change or qualify the terms of an offer; if it does, there is no meeting of the minds between the parties because the modification then becomes a counteroffer.”). At any rate, the “communications between the parties and the acts and circumstances surrounding those communications” in this case indicate that there was no meeting of the minds, and thus no offer and acceptance, regarding the essential terms of the mediation. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 93 S.W.3d at 556.

Under these circumstances, we conclude that Sigmon conclusively established that he did not accept the terms of the mediation specified in the letters faxed by LLG, the mediation rules form, or the mediation agreement form-an essential element of LLG's breach of contract claim. Cf. IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of Desoto, Tex., Inc., 143 S.W.3d at 798; see Advantage Physical Therapy, Inc., 165 S.W.3d at 25-26. Because LLG presented no evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact regarding this issue, the trial court properly granted summary judgment to Sigmon. We accordingly overrule LLG's issue.

Conclusion

We conclude that Sigmon established his entitlement to summary judgment on LLG's breach of contract claim. Having overruled LLG' single issue, we affirm the trial court's order granting Sigmon's motion for summary judgment.

/s/ Kent C. Sullivan
Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Seymore and Sullivan.