Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Notably, this Act does not deal with transactions that exceed $100,000 and $500,000. In particular, section 17. 49(f) states that only transactions less than $100,000 are subject to the Act (Alderman 78). Additionally, the Act is not applicable to written contracts especially if the transactions involved exceed $100,000 (Alderman 78). The Act further states that a consumer’s complaint under the Act must be founded on the thing purchased or acquired; in this light privity is not required under the Act (Alderman 78).

In section 17. 50(a) it highlights a number of claims under the Act as follows (Alderman 79): (a) there has to be elements of deception, falsity or mislead (b) breach of warranty whether expressed or implied (c) unconscionable action In subsection (24) failure to disclose is prohibited under the Act especially with a motive to dissuade the consumer into the transaction (Alderman 80). Section 17.

46(b) (23) demands that the consumer establishes the following: (a) the accused had some prior knowledge about the good or service (b) the defendant deliberately concealed the information (c) the motive to induce the consumer into the transaction (d) the consumer would have stopped any furtherance of the transaction had the information been disclosed. Section 17. 50(a) the consumer must establish that the defendant was the principal cause of the damages either at the economical or mental level.

The first question that the reader should ask himself is if Casey Consumer qualifies to be a consumer as per the DTPA Act; as in, did she acquire or did she seek the house? Again, did she acquire it through leasing or purchasing? Then upon acquiring it through whichever means did she take possession of it? It is evident that the Casey Consumer signed a contract to buy the house. The fact that she tried to sell the house is a clear indication that she had bought the house and had taken possession of it.

It is simple logic that one can only seek to sell what belongs to him. In this regard, Casey Consumer is a consumer as far as DTPA is concerned. That is the first thing this study has established and so it moves to the next specification. There is nowhere indicated that the Casey Consumer had assets above worth 25 million and again it is not clear if the transaction was above $100,000 0r $300,000.

All this study learns is that the price of the house was going for a price lower by $300,000 compared to other houses Casey Consumer visited. Up to this point it is not possible to determine the kind of transaction that took place. By assumption, the price of the house would have been lower than $100,000 or higher. This study assumes that it was less than $100,000 to further demonstrate the Act. It can be argued and justifiably so that the defendant was guilty of deception, falsity, misrepresentation and failure of disclosure.

He knew very well why he was selling the house and yet he did not tell the Casey Consumer that his mother had just been murdered in the same house. It is also clear that Casey Consumer would not have moved in the house had she known about it. In general, the Casey Consumer is entitled to the protection of this Act and her liability should be compensated accordingly and as stated in the DTPA Act. In this section essential elements of this Act will be analyzed and then applied to the case between Casey Consumer, RGM and GBH.