PJC Business 2024

D AMAGES

PJC 115.10

v. Danny Darby Real Estate, Inc. , 750 S.W.2d 174, 175 n.2 (Tex. 1988), the supreme court raised, but because it was not asserted by point of error, left unanswered, the question of whether those expenses must be proved reasonable and necessary. Lost time. See Village Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Porter , 716 S.W.2d 543, 549–50 (Tex. App.—Austin 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.), and Ybarra v. Saldana , 624 S.W.2d 948, 951–52 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1981, no writ), abrogation on other grounds recog nized by Milt Ferguson Motor Co. v. Zeretzke , 827 S.W.2d 349 (Tex. App.—San Anto nio 1991, no writ), for discussion of damages for lost time. Consideration paid. Another accepted measure of damages is the consumer’s net economic loss, determined by subtracting the amount of any benefits received from the consideration the consumer has paid. For example, in Woo v. Great Southwestern Acceptance Corp. , 565 S.W.2d 290, 298 (Tex. App.—Waco 1978, writ ref’d n.r.e.), the consumer recovered as damages the amount paid for a distributorship, less the value of certain materials she had received, and in Henry S. Miller Co. v. Bynum , 797 S.W.2d 51, 54 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990), aff’d , 836 S.W.2d 160 (Tex. 1992), the consumer recovered the amounts spent to open a business, less the amount he recouped when the business was sold. If the consumer receives nothing or if what is received is worthless, then the recovery under this measure of damages would be sim ply the consideration paid. Vogelsang v. Reece Import Autos, Inc. , 745 S.W.2d 47, 48 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1987, no writ), abrogated on other grounds by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549, 554 (Tex. 1995). In addition to being a measure of damages, restoration of money paid is available under a theory of rescis sion and restitution in DTPA §17.50(b)(3). Cruz v. Andrews Restoration, Inc. , 364 S.W.3d 817, 824–27 (Tex. 2012). Medical care. If there is a question whether medical expenses are reasonable or medical care is necessary, the phrase Reasonable expenses for necessary medical care should be substituted for the phrase Medical care in sample H . No foreseeability required. Proof of foreseeability is not required to recover consequential damages, such as lost profits, under the DTPA. Howell Crude Oil Co. v. Donna Refinery Partners, Ltd. , 928 S.W.2d 100, 110–11 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied); Hycel, Inc. v. Wittstruck , 690 S.W.2d 914, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Waco 1985, writ dism’d); cf . Investors, Inc. v. Hadley , 738 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex. App.—Austin 1987, writ denied). Nonetheless, if these damages are too remote, too uncertain, or purely conjectural, they cannot be recovered. Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equipment Corp. , 945 S.W.2d 812, 816 (Tex. 1997). Mental anguish. Mental anguish damages may be recoverable in DTPA actions if the trier of fact finds the conduct was committed knowingly, DTPA § 17.50(b)(1), or if a claimant is granted the right to bring a cause of action under the DTPA by “another law,” DTPA § 17.50(h).

447