Opinion ID: 2455468
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DTPA Claim: Circumstantial Evidence Representation Untrue

Text: The Donwerths first complain that the court of appeals erred in holding that there was no evidence to support the jury finding that Preston II represented the automobile was of a particular standard, quality or grade when it was of another. We agree. White, the Preston II salesman, represented that there was nothing wrong with the brakes. The Donwerths, however, produced evidence that despite proper braking procedure the brakes began groaning within a few months after the purchase. After five months, when the Donwerths had driven the car approximately 3,250 miles, Preston II's own service report showed that the front brake linings were gone, were metal to metal, and that the back linings were super thin, making the car dangerous due to brakes. Finally, as previously noted, the odometer had been rolled back approximately 20,000 miles at the time of purchase. Together, this constituted some evidence that the brakes were excessively worn and defective at the time of the sale, thus supporting the jury finding that Preston II represented the car was of a particular standard, quality or grade when it was of another. See Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729, 733 (Tex.1984).