Three weeks after purchasing the vehicle, plaintiff discovered red paint on the windshield of the car and suspected that the vehicle had been involved in an accident. Plaintiff returned the vehicle to defendant's premises and demanded a refund of her purchase price or another comparable vehicle that had not been involved in an accident. When defendant refused, plaintiff filed suit against defendant alleging claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The trial court, sitting without a jury, found that although defendant did not commit fraud upon plaintiff, defendant's misleading statements constituted an unfair and deceptive trade practice under G.S. 75-1.1. Larry L. Eubanks and Robin R. Setzer for defendant-appellant .
Defendant brings forward three assignments of error.
After careful review of the record and briefs, we affirm in part, reverse in part and remand. Terms set forth in a writing intended to be the final expression of an agreement between two parties may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior agreement or of a contemporaneous oral agreement. The general rule of contracts is that parole evidence cannot be admitted to vary, add to, or contradict the express terms of a written contract. The dealer assumes no responsibility for any repairs regardless of any oral statements about the vehicle. Defendant contends that these statements should have been excluded.