Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act: The Fire Extinguisher Case

$19.95

Add to cart
Essay #: 052886
Total text length is 4,180 characters (approximately 2.9 pages).

Excerpts from the Paper

The beginning:
StudentFirstName StudentLastName
Dr. ProfessorFirstName ProfessorLastName
LAW 123
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act: The Fire Extinguisher Case
Mary Lou had a bad experience with her faulty fire extinguisher and this is not a fact anyone is arguing against. The revelation that Home-Arama deemed the product as having “questionable reliability” is damning evidence which lends immense support to damage claims. A relevant text in the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act is as follows:
Sec. 17.46.  DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES UNLAWFUL.
(a)  False, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful and are subject to action by the consumer protection division under Sections 17.47,...
The end:
.....ages claim. It is possible that under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the attorney of Mary Lou could make a reasonable request for $498,000 if the mental anguish claims were equivalent to the economic damages claim. Gauging from the attitude of Home-Arama towards their consumers, a jury would not likely be favorable to their defense.
The attorney for Mary Lou has ample text within the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act to aid in making the case for copious damages claim arguments to judge. Texas law is clear as can be in reference to this case and Home-Arama could also be facing corollary legal action for other violations in reference to the fire extinguisher and potentially criminal representation of its virtues, or lack thereof.