Court Opinion

ID: 9931763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:29:25.319277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:26.670575
License: Public Domain

On original deliverance, I dissented because I was of the opinion, based on the evidence presented, "that, as a matter of law, the Harrises failed to establish their claim of fraud in the inducement, in that they failed to prove that Toyota City intentionally deceived them or acted so recklessly as to amount to the same thing."
On application for rehearing, Toyota City apparently is satisfied with the holding in the original majority opinion that a jury question was presented on the question concerning the Harrises' claim of fraud in the inducement, because it makes no argument that this Court erred in this regard on original deliverance; consequently, I assume that Toyota City is satisfied if it can get a new trial on the issue of fraud. In *Page 81 
view of that assumption, I concur in the result.
HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.