Have you ever heard (maybe on Judge Judy) the "four corners rule?" This refers to the parol evidence rule that states only what is within the four corners of a contract should be considered and no outside evidence may be introduced when there is a contract dispute. But of course with everything in the law there are some exceptions.

An Indiana case involved an agreement for the sale and purchase of a vehicle. Price, the seller of vehicle, had advertised the vehicle on Craigslist as a 1994 Ford E-350 van. Interested in possibly purchasing the van, Barker met with Price and inspected the van, after which he orally agreed to purchase the van from Price for $15,000. Barker and Price then signed a deposit agreement under which Barker was required to immediately pay Price $2,000 to be applied as a deposit for the van, and Price was to provide Barker "title [to the van] by 4/14/14 or deposit will be refunded in full." The agreement did not specify the model year of the van, but rather referred to the van as a "Ford E-350 Van." The certificate of title Price later provided to Barker indicated that the van was actually a 1993 model rather than a 1994 model. Barker refused to accept the certificate of title and demanded a refund of the deposit, which Price refused to return.

opinion wise, who should win? Should the parol evidence rule be enforced or should outside information that the advertisement stated the van was a 1994 but the title stated it is a 1993 be considered?