“The Texas Supreme Court recently indicated that a person’s ‘objective’ is of paramount importance in determining DTPA consumer status”
How later courts described this case
- “The Texas Supreme Court recently indicated that a person’s ‘objective’ is of paramount importance in determining DTPA consumer status”
- “[A] person’s ‘objective’ is of paramount importance in determining DTPA consumer status.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ELLIS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the Court in affirming the trial court’s judgment. I agree with the court that the transfer of valuable consideration is not a prerequisite to consumer status under the DTP A.
The majority in its opinion sets up a two-pronged test to determine consumer status. They state that a DTPA consumer is one who in good faith initiates the purchasing process. They go on to state that an individual initiates the purchasing process when he:
(1) presents himself to the seller as a willing buyer with the subjective intent or specific “objective” of purchasing, and
*188 (2) possesses at least some credible in-dicia of the capacity to consummate the transaction.
They suggest that if a defendant-seller in a DTPA action challenges the plaintiff-buyer’s status as a consumer, the buyer must be prepared to.offer proof of (1) a good-faith intention to purchase and (2) the capacity to purchase the goods or services in question. I agree that the plaintiff-buyer in a DTPA action should show a good-faith intention to purchase the goods or services but I do not agree that he must show proof of his capacity to purchase the goods or services. I do not think that this restriction should be placed on the achievement of consumer status because many DTPA violations occur prior to the consumer’s knowledge of the cost or his capacity to finance the cost of the goods or services.