KLRA202400329
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Aug 26, 2024Background
- Katherine Ortiz Castro filed a complaint against Master Motors, LLC, Popular Auto, LLC, and Popular Auto, seeking to rescind the sale and financing contracts for a used Nissan Versa, alleging her consent was vitiated.
- Ortiz Castro claimed she was shown and agreed to purchase a gray, sporty Nissan Versa, but upon completion of paperwork (without proper orientation or opportunity to review documents), she received a different, defective gray Nissan Versa.
- Ortiz Castro alleged the dealer failed to inform her of details regarding the substitution and the financing, and that the vehicle delivered had multiple defects immediately upon receipt.
- Five days after the transaction, Ortiz Castro returned the vehicle to Master Motors and notified Popular Auto, which later repossessed it; she sought return of her $500 deposit.
- The Puerto Rico Department of Consumer Affairs (DACo) found that Master Motors engaged in serious deceit, nullified the contract, and ordered restitution; Master Motors sought judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DACo erred in its fact findings | Facts, including bait-and-switch and lack of consent, were established at the hearing | DACo omitted relevant facts and misconstrued events | DACo's fact finding upheld; evidence supports plaintiff's version |
| Whether grave deceit (dolo) vitiated consent to the contract | Consent was vitiated by the seller's intentional misrepresentation | No deceit occurred; contract was affirmed by plaintiff's signature and possession | DACo correctly found grave deceit and vitiated consent; contract annulled |
| Proper remedy for breach (including restitution & contract resolution) | Seeks annulment of contracts and return of deposit | No payments made to finance company; contract was properly closed | Contracts annulled; $500 deposit returned by dealer, obligations otherwise separated |
| DACo's jurisdiction despite lack of plaintiff payments to Popular Auto | DACo has broad authority to protect consumers in motor vehicle sales | DACo lacked jurisdiction as plaintiff made no payments to finance company | DACo had jurisdiction; process proper |
Key Cases Cited
- García Reyes v. Cruz Auto Corp., 173 DPR 870 (Puerto Rico 2008) (scope of judicial review of administrative agencies and deference to their findings)
- Asoc. Fcias. v. Caribe Specialty et al. II, 179 DPR 923 (Puerto Rico 2010) (administrative agency decision standards and review parameters)
- Camacho Torres v. AAFET, 168 DPR 66 (Puerto Rico 2006) (presumption of regularity and burden of proof in review of administrative decisions)
- Suárez Figueroa v. Sabanera Real, 173 DPR 694 (Puerto Rico 2008) (DACo powers and mandate to protect consumers)
- Otero v. Toyota, 163 DPR 716 (Puerto Rico 2003) (limitations and review of agency conclusions of law)