Misrepresenting Here Dean Case Summary

1.
Sharon must be a consumer uin order to assert any rights aginst Dean. A consumer is a person A consumer means an individual partnership, cooperation this state or a subdivision or agency who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease any goods or services. The goods or services must form the basis of the complaint. Godds menan tangible chattel or real property purchased or leased for use. Here Susan is a Consumer since she purchased the boat which is a good. The is what boat forms the basis of her complaint since the boat is what broke down and was not properly maintained,
Sharron can assert the DTPA laundry list violations. Laundry list violations are false deceptive acts that the consumer relied upon to their decrement. Representing
While Dean’s comment that it ran like new would probably be consider puffery and sales talk and therefore not a misrepresentation his comment that the boat was in great condition will likely be found to be a misrepresentation. Since the boat was in fact not in good condition. Sandra relied on this misrepresentation to her detriment. It does not matter whether or not Dean intentionally misrepresented the chaterisitcs of the boat.
Sharon would also be able to bring a claim of misrepresentation of the quality g of the goods. Under a of quality claim the seller misrepresented the quality of the good and the consumer relied on this misrepresentation to their determent,
Here Dean misrepresented the quality of the boat to Sharon. He represented to her that the boat was ready to use and implied to her the boat was inspected by a mechanic by showing her her the mechanics 30 point checklist. Sandra relied on this misrepresentation to her detrment because she wanted a boat that was in good consition. However, the boat was not inspected by a meanic nor ready to use since the day after purchase the boat broke down about only an hour of use. Therefore, Sandra has a claim of misrepresentation of the quality of the
This became the basis of the bargain because she purchased the boat because of it. Sandra can therefore, bring a breach of express warranty,
An Implied warranty of merchantability of goods is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. In order for the goods to be merchantable they must be fit for the ordinary purposes of which such goods are used. The implied warranty of merchantability applies to a seller of used goods as well but the warranty is not as expansive because it is used.
Here Dean is a merchant with respect to used boats. He warranted to Sharon that the boat was fit for its ordinary purposes, which is to be able to run on the water. Dean breached this warranty because the boat stopped running after an hour of use and therefore the boat is not fit for its ordinary purpose.
An Implied Warranty of Fitness for Particular Purposes of goods arises, when the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods unless excluded warrants the good is fit for that particular