Court Opinion

ID: 9775459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:59:37.469183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:26.418110
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
DICKENSON, Justice.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled. In addition to the authorities cited in this Court’s opinion dated June 18, 1987, see Home Savings Association v. Guerra, 733 S.W.2d 134, 136 (1987), where the Court said:
Although a consumer suing under the DTPA need not establish contractual privity with the defendant, he must show that the defendant has committed a deceptive act which is the producing cause of the consumer’s damagete. (Citations omitted) The DTPA does not attach derivative liability to a defendant based on an innocent involvement in a business transaction. (Citations omitted) To hold a creditor liable in a consumer credit transaction, the creditor must be shown to have some connection either with the actual sales transaction or with a deceptive act related to financing the transaction. (Citations omitted)
ARNOT, J., not participating.