12. Which of the following is NOT admissible on the issue of whether the part was manufactured by the factory?

D is correct. Since the issue in the case is very specific to the facts of the case, a judgment for another plaintiff against the factory, even if the facts are substantially similar, is inadmissible in this case. It is completely irrelevant to the determination of whether the driver's auto part was manufactured by the factory that some other plaintiff in some other case obtained a judgment against the factory.

A is incorrect. The insignia or trademark is relevant, non-hearsay evidence that is self-authenticating as an inscription, sign, or label purporting to have been affixed in the course of business and indicating ownership, control, or origin.

B is incorrect. The testimony that the part was purchased from a parts house to which the factory regularly sold parts is relevant, admissible evidence. While certainly not dispositive, where the part was purchased is certainly evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

C is incorrect. Identification of the object can be shown through comparison by the trier of fact with specimens which have been authenticated.