While this case is currently pending trial, early in the litigation, motion on behalf of the bond company was filed on the basis that the fraud complained of by customer was not the result of any written representation in the purchase documents, but rather, the alleged fraud was supported by allegations of oral statements by dealer’s employees, and thus the customer was barred from pursuing a claim against the bond. This outcome not only preserved the bond and dealer’s standing with its bond company, but also applied pressure to plaintiff’s attorney because he could no longer rely on any attorneys’ fees judgment being immediately paid up to the amount of the bond. At the conclusion of the litigation, bond will be entitled to its court costs against customer.