Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the only true claim in this case, i.e, that appellees had misrepresented who held record title to the 4.58 acre tract, a claim that is not actionable. Further, the provisions of 17.46(b) pled by Tri-Legends to support its article 21.21 claim, (5), (7), and (19), apply to “good or services” which are purchased or leased. The summary judgment proof, even when viewed in the light most favorable to TriLegends, conclusively shows that the title commitment was not purchased or leased by anyone; it was issued to Allied without charge. A service that is performed gratuitously is not purchased or leased within the meaning of the DTPA. Fortner v. Fannin Bank in Windom, 634 S.W.2d 74, 76 (Tex.App.—Austin 1982, no writ); Hall v. Bean, 582 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1979, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Tri-Legends’ next argument concerns its 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business (B) holding that there is no individual liability under title vii (C) holding that when no consideration given for contest prize there is no purchase under dtpa (D) holding that no cause of action for bad faith exists when insurer has reasonable grounds to contest liability (E) holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify
Output (English): holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business