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;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 sales 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 leading object rule will allow evidence as to the discussion of the warranty.
C)Yes.The evidence is needed because the contract is ambiguous.
D)No,because the contract was fully executed.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The parol evidence rule prohibits the introduction of evidence to vary or contradict the terms of a fully integrated written contract. Even if the sales representative made statements that the car had a two-year full warranty, the written contract contained no such provision. Since the written contract is the final expression of the parties' agreement, any prior or subsequent negotiations or discussions are inadmissible to supplement, explain, or alter its terms. Therefore, Vicki cannot present evidence of the sales representative's statements about the warranty.

Vicki Entered into a Written Contract to Buy a Car