The plaintiff is suing the defendant, a used boat dealer, as a result of the purchase by the plaintiff of a used boat from the defendant. The boat stopped running one week after the plaintiff purchased it. The plaintiff seeks damages because of fraudulent representations made to him and for breach of warranty.
The defendant testified that the plaintiff never asked for a warranty. In rebuttal, the plaintiff called his coworker, who was with the plaintiff just before he went down to the defendant’s yard to purchase the boat. The coworker proposes to testify that the plaintiff said, just as he was leaving, that he would never buy a used boat without a warranty.
If the defendant objects to the proposed testimony, the trial judge should rule that it is:
A. Admissible to show that the plaintiff was cautious.
B. Admissible to show that the plaintiff demanded a warranty.
C. Inadmissible as hearsay, not within an exception.
D. Inadmissible because of the parol evidence rule.
{ 12 comments }
