Weitzel v. Barnes
28 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 474, 1985 Tex. LEXIS 863, 691 S.W.2d 598 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), an oral misrepresentation regarding the quality of goods can serve as the basis for a cause of action. A consumer is not required to prove the seller's intent to deceive or their own reliance on the misrepresentation; they must only show the misrepresentation was a producing cause of their damages.
Facts:
- Dennis and Lori Weitzel signed a contract to purchase a remodeled home from Barnes/Segraves Development Company.
- The written contract gave the Weitzels the right to inspect the plumbing and air conditioning systems before finalizing the purchase.
- The contract stipulated that if the Weitzels were dissatisfied, they could reject the contract, have the seller make repairs up to $1,000, or buy the house and make the repairs themselves.
- Barnes/Segraves Development Company orally represented to the Weitzels that the home's plumbing and air conditioning systems complied with the Fort Worth city code.
- The Weitzels did not conduct an inspection of the systems before purchasing the home.
- After the purchase, the Weitzels discovered that the plumbing and air conditioning systems did not function properly and were not in compliance with city code.
Procedural Posture:
- Dennis and Lori Weitzel filed suit against Barnes/Segraves Development Company in a Texas trial court for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA).
- After a trial to the court (a bench trial), the judge found in favor of the Weitzels and rendered judgment for them for actual damages, trebled damages, and attorney's fees.
- Barnes/Segraves, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with the Weitzels as appellees.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment, finding in favor of Barnes/Segraves.
- The Weitzels, as petitioners, appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Texas.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) require a consumer to prove reliance on an oral misrepresentation or that the seller acted with an intent to deceive, particularly when a written contract gives the consumer the right to inspect the goods?
Opinions:
Majority - Kilgarlin, Justice
No. The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) does not require a consumer to prove reliance or intent to deceive, and the parol evidence rule does not bar claims based on oral misrepresentations. The court reasoned that a DTPA claim is not a breach of contract action, so traditional contractual defenses like the parol evidence rule do not apply. The court further held that the plain language of DTPA § 17.46(b)(7), which prohibits representing goods as being of a particular standard when they are not, contains no requirement to prove intent to deceive, trickery, or artifice. Finally, the court determined that the legislature specifically chose 'producing cause' as the standard for causation in DTPA claims, having explicitly rejected 'reliance' in the legislative process, meaning reliance is not an element a consumer must plead or prove.
Dissenting - Gonzalez, Justice
Yes. A consumer should be required to show that a misrepresentation was a producing cause of damages, and reliance is a necessary component of proving that causation. The dissent argues that it is absurd for a misrepresentation to be a 'producing cause' of damages if the consumer did not rely on it. In this case, the buyer was an attorney who had a contractual right to inspect and had actual notice of a 'condemned' sign on the property. The dissent concludes that without reliance, there is no causal link between the seller's statement and the buyer's damages, and the legislature never intended the DTPA to protect sophisticated buyers who ignore clear warnings and contractual duties.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by removing major common law barriers to recovery for consumers. By holding that neither the parol evidence rule, proof of intent, nor reliance are required elements, the court made it much easier for consumers to sue based on oral misrepresentations, even those made alongside a formal written contract. The case firmly establishes 'producing cause' as a lenient standard of causation, shifting significant risk to sellers for any affirmative statements they make about a product's quality. This precedent reduces the effectiveness of 'as is' clauses and inspection rights as shields against liability for deceptive statements.
