Question

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. Decision on the objection?

Answer 1

Fact of the case :

Rachel bought a car from Beautiful Used Car Agency due to oral misrepresentation by one of their agent, but later on she found out that car, has been previously wrecked and rebuilt, while is in good condition etc but the opposite was true which the agency was aware of.

In this case even though Parol Evidence Rule applies where the Beautiful Used Car Agency objected to the oral testimony for car never been in a wreck and could be driven at least two thousand miles without adding oil, which is likely to get overruled as Parol evidence rule always excludes the admission of any evidences that establishes the fraud. As rule applies to the contracts that are in writing, while the extinsic evidences presented can alter, vary etc as the contract that is in writing can be changed by the parties involved in the contract, but as the evidences suggest it is a case of fraudulent misrepresentation due to which court can consider it as not a part of contract and its apart and separate from it hence making the objection void as it prohibits the parol evidence rule and introduces the evidences that represent fraud.

Note : If you liked the answer please give an Up-vote, this will be quite encouraging for me, thank you !