Beautiful objects to the introduction of oral testimony concerning representations of its agent, contending that the written contract alone governed the rights of the parties. Explain whether Rachel should succeed.
| ♥ 0 |
Rachel bought a car from the Beautiful Used Car Agency under a written contract. She purchased the car in reliance on Beautiful’s agent’s oral representations that it had never been in a wreck and could be driven at least two thousand miles without adding oil. Thereafter, Rachel discovered that the car had, in fact, been previously wrecked and rebuilt, that it used excessive quantities of oil, and that Beautiful’s agent was aware of these facts when the car was sold. Rachel brings an action to rescind the contract and recover the purchase price. Beautiful objects to the introduction of oral testimony concerning representations of its agent, contending that the written contract alone governed the rights of the parties. Explain whether Rachel should succeed. |
Explanation
The written contract did not include the oral misrepresentation about the condition and miles of the car, which was given by the agent. The acceptance of the record to prove the fraud and oral misrepresentation that is made by the agent with Individual R in the context of the selling of the car will be considered because the Parol Evidence Rule is not applicable in case of fraud.
Individual R should proceed forward because the evidence of oral misrepresentation provides the right to Individual R to take the required action against the car selling agency.
Verified Answer
The case may be in favor of Individual R as Individual R has enough evidence to prove oral misrepresentation of the car, and the Parol Evidence Rule is not applicable in such situation.
