## Facts

- Michael and Mrs. Ragsdale owned a home on a very steep hillside lot and wanted to add a swimming pool despite concerns about drainage.
- They contacted Anthony Industries, Inc. d/b/a Anthony Pools. Anthony’s representative, Jay Ratliff, visited the property and told the Ragsdales a pool could be built “without any problem.”
- The Ragsdales also wanted a rock retaining wall and a flagstone deck around the pool. Ratliff told them Anthony did not perform stonework and suggested they hire someone else for that portion.
- The Ragsdales signed a written contract with Anthony for construction of the pool only. The contract placed responsibility on the Ragsdales to ensure drainage beyond the pool site met applicable requirements, disclaimed liability for subcontractors’ work, and contained an integration clause.
- A few days later, Ratliff delivered plans and specifications (several drawings on one sheet) showing the pool’s placement relative to the house and depicting the intended deck and retaining wall locations.
- Jerry White later approached the Ragsdales with a copy of those drawings, claimed to be connected with a stonework business, and contracted to build the deck and wall; after receiving a down payment, he disappeared.
- Charles McKee ultimately performed the deck and wall work, but the work was poorly done and contributed to drainage and related problems.
- The Ragsdales sued Anthony (and others) under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), claiming Ratliff’s assurances and drawings misrepresented that the pool/deck/wall project could be completed without drainage problems and that Ratliff made warranties concerning the overall project.
- The jury found a misrepresentation and the trial court awarded actual damages, treble damages under the DTPA, and attorney’s fees.

## Issues

1. Whether the DTPA applied to the Ragsdales’ transaction with Anthony Pools and the challenged statements/drawings.
2. Whether the evidence supported DTPA liability based on Ratliff’s statements and the plans provided to the Ragsdales.
3. Whether the written contract’s drainage-allocation provision, subcontractor disclaimer, and integration clause limited Anthony’s responsibility and required reducing or reversing parts of the damages awarded.
4. Whether the damages awarded were sufficiently tied (as producing cause) to Anthony’s actionable conduct, as opposed to losses caused by the stonework contractor(s).

## Decision

- The court held the DTPA applied to the transaction and rejected Anthony’s primary argument that the Act did not apply.
- The court upheld DTPA liability to the extent supported by evidence of deceptive representations connected to Anthony’s work and the plans/assurances provided to the Ragsdales.
- The court affirmed only the portion of the judgment supported by causation and the scope of Anthony’s obligations, as defined by the written contract and the evidence.
- The court reversed in part, concluding that certain components of the damages could not be recovered from Anthony where they were not caused by Anthony’s conduct and instead stemmed from the separate stonework arrangements and other matters outside Anthony’s pool-only contract.

## Legal Principles

- Homeowners who purchase construction services such as pool installation may qualify as “consumers” under the DTPA, and the DTPA can apply to misrepresentations made in connection with those services.
- A DTPA claim based on misrepresentation requires proof that the deceptive act was a producing cause of the consumer’s damages; the defendant is not liable for losses not shown to flow from the actionable conduct.
- A written contract may define and limit the scope of the seller’s undertaking (for example, allocating drainage compliance beyond the work site to the buyer and disclaiming responsibility for other contractors), which can limit what damages are recoverable from the seller under a DTPA theory.
- An integration clause and related contractual disclaimers do not automatically defeat DTPA coverage, but they are relevant to what the defendant agreed to do, what risks were allocated to the buyer, and whether claimed damages are properly traceable to the defendant’s conduct rather than to third parties.

## Conclusion

Anthony Industries, Inc. v. Ragsdale holds that the DTPA can apply to a pool-construction transaction and that a contractor’s assurances and plans may support DTPA liability, but the contractor is not responsible for damage elements not shown to be caused by its deceptive conduct—especially where the written contract limits the contractor’s scope to the pool and allocates drainage and subcontractor risks to the homeowners—so the court affirmed the judgment only in part and reversed the remainder.


Anthony Industries, Inc. v. Ragsdale, 643 S.W.2d 167 (1982)