Vicki entered into a written contract to buy a car from Valley Motors.During the negotiations,the sales representative said that the car had a two-year full warranty.The written contract included a provision that stated,"This writing is the full and final expression of the parties' agreement,and anything said before signing or while signing is irrelevant." The written contract did not include a warranty.Two months after Vicki took delivery of the car,she discovered that the transmission needed to be replaced.Vicki claimed that it was covered by the full warranty.Will Vicki be able to present evidence as to the sale representative's statements concerning the warranty?
A) No. The parol evidence rule will most likely exclude any evidence of the discussion of the warranty.
B) Yes. The UCC will allow evidence as to the discussion of the warranty.
C) Yes. The evidence is needed because the contract is ambiguous.
D) Yes. The contract was fully executed.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The parol evidence rule states that if a written contract is intended to be a final and complete agreement, any prior or contemporaneous oral or written statements cannot be used to contradict, vary or add to the terms of the written contract. In this case, the contract explicitly states that it is the full and final expression of the parties' agreement, so any prior statements made by the sales representative concerning the warranty will be excluded by the parol evidence rule.

Vicki Entered into a Written Contract to Buy a Car