This action was initiated by appellee Leggett to recover $1,598.52 from appellant on an open account. Leggett rebuilds engines and sells wholesale to mechanics and retail vendors. Appellant, d/b/a C&C Auto Truck Service, operates a truck repair business. At trial, appellant did not dispute the balance shown on the account, but denied liability on the ground that it had incurred expenses in excess of that amount as a result of the repair and replacement of a defective engine supplied by appellee. Appellant counterclaimed to recover those costs. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Leggett for $1,598.52.

Appellant bases his objection to the exhibit on the best evidence rule, OCGA 24-5-4 (Code Ann. 38-203). OCGA 24-5-4 (b) (Code Ann. 38-203) provides that "[i]n all cases where the parties have reduced their contract . . . to writing . . . such writing is the best evidence of [the contract]." OCGA 24-5-4 (a) (Code Ann. 38-203) provides that "[t]he best evidence which exists of a writing sought to be proved shall be produced, unless its absence shall be satisfactorily accounted for."

Appellant's appeal is without merit. OCGA 24-5-4 (a) (Code Ann. 38-203) makes the best evidence rule inapplicable whenever the absence of the original writing is "satisfactorily accounted for." OCGA 24-5-21 (Code Ann. 38-702) provides that "[i]f a paper shall have been lost or destroyed, proof of the fact to the court shall admit secondary evidence. The question of diligence is one for the sound discretion of the court." This rule applies both to secondary documentary evidence and to parol testimony. Palmer v. Wilkins, 163 Ga. App. 104 (3) (294 SE2d 355); New Ware Furniture Co. v. Reynolds, 16 Ga. App. 19 (3) (84 SE 491). We find no error in the trial court's admission of the copy of the warranty introduced by appellee Leggett under the facts of this particular case; the weight to be given it and the credibility of Mr. Leggett's testimony concerning the comparative terms of the warranty which came with the engine were merely jury questions. Mu]key v. State, 155 Ga. App. 304, 307 (270 SE2d 816).