chengconsumer - Consumer Law Outline I. Timeline/ Overview...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Consumer Law Outline I. Timeline/ Overview A. 1973 – Deceptive Trade Practices Act first enacted * serious teeth as first enacted * 4 statutory causes of action in sec. 17.50 1) violation of any of the listed prohibited provisions - started at 17 listed provisions, now up to 27; referred to as the laundry list. 2) breach of warranty; a contracts issue, but now also violation of the DTPA 3) D commits an unconscionable act or practice 4) violations of 21.21 of the Tx. Ins. Code > 5) tie in statutes - some statutes make violations also violations of the DTPA; for instance the Tx. Debt collections Act – violate this one, also violate the DTPA * loosened up somewhat b/w ’77 and ‘82 * backed up on mandatory trembling of damages (tripling the damages) * attorney’s fees still recoverable B. 1995 – still too harsh; further changes in sec. 17.50 * tremble damages if D acted intentionally * if knowingly – double or ½ damages * case law suggests that you don’t have to prove intentionally or knowingly * if violate tie in statute get treble damages regardless of intentionally or knowingly C. Consumer law is cyclical in nature: liberal (pro-consumer) cycling back to conservative we are currently in the third cycle in Texas the S. Ct. is applying it very liberally, while the Legislature is cutting the act back in the late ‘80’s – the S. Ct. started cutting back on consumer protection today’s federal movements to protect consumer are in the fields of identity theft and SPAM. D. version of the DTPA that applies to your case is the one that was in effect at the time of the deceptive trade practice II. Ch. 1 Deceptive Trade Practices Act; Section 2 Proper Party P = Consumers (pg 5) A. sec. 17.50 (pg 583) Relief for Consumers states their causes of actions. B. The same act may give rise to more than one type of claim: DTPA or warranty C. IN order to maintain successful DTPA lawsuit, P must show 3 things 1. P is a “consumer” as defined by the act 2. D has committed one of the actions specified in 17.50(a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) 3. the D’s action was the producing cause of the damages 1
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
D. “Consumer” – 17.45 (4); individual, corp, this state, or a subdivision or agency of this state who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services, except that the term does not include a business consumer that has assets of $25 million or more, or that is owned or controlled by an corp or entity with assets of $25 million or more. a. “seek or acquire” i. Poliquin case – two pronged test for a consumer who did not actually acquire a product: 1. good faith intention to purchase 2. capacity or ability to purchase ii. Landmark Chevrolet – was offer to purchase a car for $100 in good faith? 1.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/18/2008 for the course LAW 1 taught by Professor 1 during the Spring '08 term at Texas Tech.

Page1 / 28

chengconsumer - Consumer Law Outline I. Timeline/ Overview...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online