## Facts

- Charles Pennington bought a used boat, motor, and trailer from J.W. Singleton III in May 1975.
- Singleton was a private individual who had never sold a boat before and was not in the business of selling boats.
- To induce the sale, Singleton stated the boat had just had $500 of work done and was in excellent, perfect, and like-new condition.
- The trial court found these statements were made as statements of material fact, not opinion or puffing.
- The statements were false because the motor’s gear housing had been cracked and inadequately repaired and was not adequate for its intended use at the time of sale.
- Singleton did not know the statements were false and did not make them recklessly because he had not experienced problems after the repair.
- Pennington relied on the statements and would not have purchased the boat without them.
- In July 1975, Pennington incurred $481.68 in repair costs to fix the gear housing.
- The trial court found the misrepresentations caused an unconscionable result.

## Issues

1. Whether the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices–Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) applies to an isolated sale by a private individual not engaged in selling the goods as a business.
2. Whether DTPA liability and statutory treble damages may be imposed without proof the seller made misrepresentations knowingly, intentionally, or with fraudulent intent.
3. Whether applying the DTPA’s treble-damages remedy without a scienter requirement is unconstitutional.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of civil appeals and affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Pennington.
- The DTPA applied to the transaction despite Singleton’s status as a non-merchant and the sale’s one-time nature.
- The trial court’s findings of false, material factual representations and an unconscionable result supported DTPA liability even absent knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.
- The DTPA’s treble-damages provision was constitutional as applied without requiring proof of wrongful intent.
- Pennington’s award was reinstated at $981.68, reflecting $481.68 in actual damages plus an additional amount limited by the parties’ $500 stipulation.

## Legal Principles

- The DTPA is not limited to merchants or professional sellers; it can apply to isolated private sales when the buyer is a consumer and the seller’s conduct falls within the statute’s prohibitions.
- Statements about a product’s condition may be actionable under the DTPA when found to be false statements of material fact rather than mere sales talk.
- DTPA causes of action are independent of common-law fraud and may succeed even when common-law fraud elements (including scienter) are not proved.
- Under the DTPA provisions applied, liability and statutory multiple damages may be imposed without proof the defendant knew the representation was false or intended to deceive.
- Statutory multiple damages under the DTPA are constitutionally permissible as a legislative remedy for deceptive or unconscionable conduct in consumer transactions.

## Conclusion

The Texas Supreme Court held that a consumer may recover under the DTPA for false, material factual representations made in a one-time private sale, and that statutory multiple damages may be applied without proving the seller acted with knowledge of falsity or intent to deceive.


Pennington v. Singleton, 606 S.W.2d 682 (Tex. 1980)