in language of ordinary negligence, it is clear from the context of appellant’s brief that this point of error concerns the representations made by True. Accordingly, we find that appellant has waived her “negligence” point of error to the extent it is not based on a misrepresentation. Tex.R.App.P. 38.1, 38.2; see also Smith, 3 S.W.3d at 84. Nevertheless, in the interests of justice, we will explain why a garden-variety negligence claim must also fail. 10 . Because we find that True did not make any affirmative misrepresentations, this is a case where the rule charging one with a duty to read what he signs precludes him from relief for any mistake resulting from his failure to do so. Cf. Plains Cotton Co-op. Ass’n v. Wolf, 553 S.W.2d 800 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). 11 . The survey is not part of the appellate
holding that a cause of action for constructive fraud will lie even when the misrepresentations were made innocently and their false nature is not discovered until well after the representations are made holding that rule does not apply where defendant made false representations holding that defendants false representations that concealed cause of action preclude statute of limitations defense holding that an attorney who made false representations to a court did not violate okla rpc 33 because that rule addresses professional misconduct as an advocate for making false statements to a tribunal not false statements by a lawyer as a witness holding that the bespeaks caution doctrine does not apply to representations of present facts that were false when made