CHURCH& - > 961 S.W.2d 560 Court of Appeals of Texas,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
> 961 S.W.2d 560 Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio. v. Michael HUEY d/b/a Clear View of Texas, Appellee. No. 04-96-00879-CV. Dec. 17, 1997. Rehearing Overruled Jan. 13, 1998. User of paint remover product sued manufacturer, under Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). The 150th District Court, Bexar County, Peter Michael Curry, J., entered judgment for manufacturer and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Hardberger, C.J., held that: (1) manufacturer could be sued, even though it claimed it manufactured only component part of system; (2) there was sufficient degree of contact between manufacturer and user to support DTPA action; (3) evidence supported determination that manufacturer made misrepresentation under DTPA; (4) manufacturer could be found liable under DTPA even though its immediate customer was found not liable; (5) manufacturer did not breach implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose; (6) jury could find that manufacturer breached express warranty that product would work on virtually any surface and that it would rinse easily; (6) jury could find that manufacturer breached warranty of merchantability; (7) causation was established, for purposes of DTPA action; (8) jury could find that knowing misrepresentations were made, allowing for additional damages under DTPA; (9) unconscionability was established under DTPA; and (10) patent applications and related papers were admissible to show attempts of manufacturer to improve product, at time it was misrepresenting its qualities. Affirmed. Before HARDBERGER, C.J., and LÓPEZ and ANGELINI, JJ. OPINION HARDBERGER, Chief Justice. A jury found that appellant, Church & Dwight Company, Inc., had violated the DTPA by making misrepresentations about its product, Armex Blast Media, to appellee, Michael Huey, who wanted to use the product to remove paint from the window frames of San Antonio's historic Travis Building. The jury awarded Huey actual damages of $9,830, additional damages under the DTPA of $50,000, and attorneys' fees. The trial judge added $2,000 in statutory penalties and reduced the additional damages to $17,660. In ten points of error, Church & Dwight claims that the verdict was legally or factually insufficient because any actions taken by the company were not taken in connection with the original purchase of the medium and that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence. We affirm the judgment. FACTS In 1993, Michael Huey, doing business as Clear View of Texas, won a bid to depaint and repaint the window frames of the Travis Building in San Antonio. To complete the job, Huey needed a material and method with which to remove the old paint efficiently. Huey learned of Armex, a baking soda-based product manufactured by Church & Dwight, through a chance meeting with Andrew Taylor, a representative of San Antonio-based American Graffiti, which uses Armex to remove graffiti from local buildings. Huey expressed an interest in the product, and Taylor agreed to
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/30/2011 for the course EMGT 5130 taught by Professor Jeong during the Fall '11 term at UH Clear Lake.

Page1 / 8

CHURCH& - > 961 S.W.2d 560 Court of Appeals of Texas,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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