Trade Practices Act Analysis

This study will examine certain aspects of USA consumer Law particularly Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). It will also take into consideration aspects of product safety and the legal implications therein. The reader will come across cases where a Casey Consumer just discovered that she had been cheated after buying a house. Additionally, there will be another case where a Casey Consumer bought some commodities on hire purchase but unfortunately she failed to settle the debt as per the requirements between her and the vendors.

In these two cases; this study shall apply DTPA and FDCPA respectively. There will be another case whereby two consumers bought Toyota vehicles only to find out that their condition was sub-standard. This again violates the principles of product safety. This will be analyzed accordingly. However, this study will include its own stance in order to integrate the legal tenets applied with right reason. This section will analyze the elements of DTPA and apply it to the case of Casey Consumer and the House seller in Texas. It is also important to note that this section will only touch on the essential facts of the case.

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) was established in 1973 and there were amendments to it in almost every legislative session (Alderman 14). It is believed to be highly pro-consumer but the frequent amendments weaken its strong points (Alderman 14). Section 17. 45(4) highlights the key elements of a consumer. The purpose of this act is to ensure that consumers do not get cheated, misled or indulge in deceptive business practices and unconscionable actions. It also prevents cases of breach of warranty and establishes economical procedures aimed at securing such protection as well (Alderman 74).

This study learns that DTPA became a powerful tool where many consumer attorneys utilized it to deal with all forms of misrepresentation, acts of deceit and fraudulent practices found in the marketplace (Alderman 74). According to the Act a consumer is that who seeks or acquires a good or service by either leasing or purchasing (Alderman 75). From this assertion this study believes that this Act can only be used by consumers who meet the specifications of this Act for a consumer. The act also states that the consumer’s realm does not include a business consumer with assets above $25 million (Alderman 74).

It is worth noting the definition of a consumer because this is very fundamental before making any application of the Act. Now, it must be established that an entity in question either “sought” or “acquired” the property, period. Therefore, an entity claiming compensation must prove that it sought or acquired. This study believes that once a consumer buys a good or service then he has acquired it; on the other hand, if an entity is pursuing a good or service so that it might secure it in the future then it is seeking it, it is as simple as that.

According to this Act, the need for a contract or contractual relationship is not very necessary, not even a payment (Alderman 75). Moreover, a consumer can be said to have acquired something only if he buys it and takes possession of it (Alderman 75). This act also stresses that it is not enough for a consumer to seek or acquire a good or service but it must be also that he took possession of it either by lease or purchase (Alderman 75).