Court Opinion

ID: 9682113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:05:33.205918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.538503
License: Public Domain

MAUZY, Justice,
concurring on Motion For Rehearing.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I would however like to add that in cases brought under the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.41 et seq. (Vernon 1987), damages are recoverable “to compensate for the actual loss sustained as a result of the defendant’s conduct.” Kish v. Van Note, 692 S.W.2d 463, 466 (Tex.1985). I would further note that under the facts of this case, either an “out of pocket” or “benefit of the bargain” measure of damages was appropriate. Nevertheless, as this court held in Kish, the “out of pocket” and “benefit of the bargain” rules are not the exclusive means of measuring damages in a DTPA action. 692 S.W.2d at 466. The allowable measure of damages may appropriately include related and necessary expenses that are incurred after the deceptive act or practice has become appar*129ent, and the measure of damages under either the “out of pocket” or “benefit of the bargain” theory should in no way be read as exclusive.
Chief Justice Phillips joins in this Concurring Opinion on Rehearing.