Raul Aguilar v. Autohaus

This is a deceptive trade practices case. Raul Aguilar (Aguilar) went to Autohaus Inc. (Autohaus) to purchase or lease a Mercedes-Benz.
Prior to entering into a lease agreement, one of Autohaus' salesmen allegedly represented to Aguilar that "Mercedes-Benz was
the best engineered car in the world, and [Aguilar] would probably not find that [he] would ever encounter any mechanical
difficulties. [They] joked about the fact that [Aguilar's] only time loss would be when [he] would bring the car into the
agency for an oil and filter change every 7,500 miles." After Aguilar described the problems that he had with his previous
cars, the salesman allegedly represented that the Mercedes would be a far superior product. After leasing the car, Aguilar
encountered numerous problems. His primary complaint was that the engine hesitated when he attempted to accelerate. Other
problems included unstable steering, the doors not opening and closing properly, the radio and air conditioner malfunctioning
on numerous occasions, the odometer ceasing to function and transmission difficulties. Aguilar returned the car to Autohaus
for service numerous times over a three year period. Throughout this time, he continually complained about the car's hesitation
problem. While most of the problems were resolved at some point, the hesitation problem was never repaired to his satisfaction.
In his pleadings, Aguilar alleged that Autohaus violated several sections of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection
Act1 based upon the salesman's statements. After a trial before the court, judgment was rendered in favor of Aguilar.2
The court of appeals held that there was no evidence to support the trial court's findings because the salesman's statement
was too general to be an actionable misrepresentation. 794 S.W.2d 459. In reaching its decision, though, the court of appeals decided that "if the statements alleged to be misrepresentations are,
in fact, only puffing or opinion, they cannot be actionable representations under the DTPA." 794 S.W.2d at 462. In denying
the application for writ of error, we are not to be construed as approving or disapproving the analysis of the court of appeals
regarding this issue. Aguilar's application for writ of error is denied.