Opinion ID: 1782808
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: deceptive trade practices

Text: Hurst argues that special issue 3 established a per se deceptive trade practice. Special issue 3 asked: Did defendant's representative, Grimitt, tell plaintiff before the work began that defendant would secure a permit from the City of Fort Worth to install the heating and cooling unit in her home, and would get the work inspected by city inspectors? Answer: He did. Hurst contends that the defendant's representation found in the special issue, coupled with the undisputed failure to secure a permit and inspection, constituted a violation of subdivision (7) of the laundry list of per se deceptive trade practices, found in section 17.46(b) of the DTPA. That subdivision states that deceptive practices include: (7) representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another; The court of appeals held that the representation in special issue 3 was not a per se deceptive trade practice. We disagree because this case is indistinguishable from Smith v. Baldwin, 611 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. 1980). Baldwin represented to Smith that he would build Smith a house that would qualify for Veterans Administration approval. Baldwin assumed responsibility for obtaining a V.A. inspection. After a non-jury trial, the trial court found that Baldwin never obtained a final inspection report showing compliance with V.A. requirements. We held that Baldwin's conduct violated subdivision (7). Sears, like Baldwin, represented that it would obtain the approval of the appropriate governmental authority. The representation contained an implicit promise to comply with government standards. The failure to fulfill the representation was a violation of section 17.46(b)(7) and was a per se deceptive trade practice.