Witt v. Crawford

Opinion by

Gunther, J.,

Appellee purchased a used Buick from appellant, a used car dealer, upon assurance by appellant’s salesman that it was a 1948 model. Appellee, upon discovering the car was a 1947 Buick, sued in assumpsit for the difference in value and obtained a jury verdict of $240. The court below refused appellant’s motion for a new trial and judgment n.o.v. and this appeal followed.

Appellant contends that the court below erred in failing to apply the parol evidence rule to exclude oral testimony of appellee. At the time of the sale appellee had signed a paper called a “used car…