The following facts are established in the trial of Paula  v. David: (1) David works as an entirely independent door-to-door seller of vacuum cleaners; (2) David made a sales visit at Paula's home on May 1, 1985 and Paula purchased a vacuum cleaner -- a "Lolo" -- for $783.57; (3) on May 8, 1985 Paula tried to use the vacuum cleaner to suck up some water on her kitchen floor and this caused an electrical fire that destroyed her Lolo.

Paula sues David to recover the purchase price, $783.57. The complaint has two counts: (1) David fraudulently induced her to buy the vacuum cleaner by affirmatively, knowingly, deliberately, and falsely asserting that Lolos can suck up water; and (2) the inability of Paula's Lolo to suck up water violated an implied warranty of fitness.

David denies that he said anything about the Lolo's capacity to suck up water and he also avers that the destruction of the vacuum cleaner was caused by Paula's misuse of the machine rather than by its inability to suck up water.

At the trial Paula testifies that David told her that Lolos can suck up "anything, including water." Paula offers to have Wanda testify that David made a sales visit at her home on February 1, 1985, that David told her that a Lolo vacuum cleaner can suck up "anything, including mud, glass, and water," that she bought a Lolo for $765.52, and that the vacuum cleaner burst into flames when she tried to use it to suck up water. If allowed, Wanda will also testify that on March 1, 1985 she went to David's office, told him "my damn Lolo burned up after I used it on water," that she wanted her money back, that David's face turned "beet red," that he said nothing for 15 seconds, and that he then said, "Get out!"

David objects to all of the proposed testimony by Wanda. Is any of the testimony admissible? Please explain.