and another party has made a good faith change of position to his detriment as a result of the delay. Hoggett does not challenge these instructions, but relies on the legal conclusion of his corporate law expert that Brown could not be a director except as specifically provided by the articles of incorporation and bylaws. There is equal testimony from appellees’ experts that Brown was a director because the other directors treated him as one. However, we are not bound by any of this expert testimony because the question of whether a director in a closely held corporation may be barred by equitable principles from challenging the authority of another to act as director is purely one of law. See Puente v. A.S.I. Signs, 821 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied) (<HOLDING>). Texas courts have applied equitable
recognizing that the expert was particularly qualified to give his opinion holding that texas rule of evidence 702 does not permit an expert to give an opinion that the complainant or class of persons to which the complainant belongs is truthful holding that rules of evidence do not permit an expert to give opinion or state legal conclusions regarding a question of law holding even though experts are permitted to give an opinion they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others holding that an expert opinion on a question of law is inadmissible