Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:MicroCache Computers Inc. is a computer-related business. It maintained a Web site that listed computer parts, including hard drives, for sale. Mario Perez was a refinery operator for Shell Oil Refinery and repaired computers as a side business. On one evening, he was searching for hard drives on the Internet and went to MicroCache’s Web site. He noticed that Seagate 146GB hard drives were listed for $1 each. Perez ordered 100 hard drives, paid MicroCache $228.25 and received a confirmation e-mail. The following day, he received an e-mail from Hung Kien Luu, a MicroCache officer, advising him that there was a system error and that his payment was being refunded. Perez e-mailed a response advising Luu that he did not want a refund but wanted the 100 hard drives and that he expected delivery within 10 days. Perez checked MicroCache’s Web site again and saw that the hard drive’s price was now $1,195 each. MicroCache refused to sell the hard drives for $1 and Perez filed suit against Luu and MicroCache. The case was tried to the court without a jury. The court found that: Perez placed an order for 100 hard drives and paid MicroCache; that MicroCache’s Web site had a pricing error; that the Web site advised customers that MicroCache had the right to correct any pricing error; that Perez was aware of this right; that MicroCache refunded Perez’s purchase price upon learning of the pricing error; and that Perez accepted the credit. The trial court also found that MicroCache did not violate the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and that neither it nor Luu was liable to Perez. Based upon these findings, the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment. Perez appealed. HOLDING:Affirmed. First, Perez argued on appeal that the trial court’s take-nothing judgment did not conform with its findings of fact, because the court’s findings did not negate at least one element of his claim or support every element of at least one affirmative defense and that the findings actually supported his DTPA claims. Perez was required to prove four elements to establish a DTPA claim: 1. that he was a consumer; 2. that the defendant(s) engaged in at least one of the laundry list items; 3. that he detrimentally relied on the false, misleading or deceptive act or practice; and 4. that the false, misleading or deceptive act or practice was a producing cause of his injury. Perez argued that because MicroCache refused to sell him 100 hard drives for $1 each, MicroCache made false representations to him. Perez also argued that he was not required to prove that MicroCache knowingly or intentionally made the misrepresentations and, therefore, that any pricing mistake was immaterial. The DTPA contains four laundry list items specifically referring to advertising representations, the court stated. In particular, Texas Business & Commerce Code �17.46(b)(9), the court stated, prohibits advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised, while (b)(10) prohibits advertising goods or services with intent not to supply a reasonable expectable public demand unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity. This type of conduct, the court stated, has been referred to as “bait and switch” advertising. Both subsections require proof of intent, the court noted. If the misrepresentation is limited to an item’s price and that misrepresentation is made only in a general advertisement, the court stated its belief that the Legislature “intended that a claimant prove an intentional misrepresentation to recover under the DTPA.” There was considerable evidence, the court stated, that the $1 price was a mistake. Luu testified that the Web site was new and that his programmer used a $1 purchase price to test it. Perez, the court stated, was on notice when he ordered 100 Seagate hard drives that MicroCache could refuse to consummate the transaction if there was a pricing error. Thus, the court held that the trial court correctly found that Perez was not deceived. That finding is sufficient to establish that MicroCache did not commit a false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice, the court stated. OPINION:Strange, J.; Wright, C.J., McCall and Strange, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.