A man adored his big red pickup truck and took excellent care of it. As he planned to take a cross-country trip in the truck, he changed the oil and replaced the spark plugs and spark plug wires. Several hundred miles into his road trip, in the midst of a stretch of desert, the man noticed that the engine sounded funny. When he saw smoke coming out of the hood, he pulled over, got out, and opened the hood, only to find that one of the new spark plug wires was on fire. The fire spread rapidly, and eventually the whole truck went up in flames. The man suffered minor burns and smoke inhalation while trying to extinguish the fire. He then had to walk several miles in the baking desert heat to find a rest stop. He suffered severe heatstroke as a result.

A month later, the man filed suit against the company that manufactured the spark plug wires. He alleged that the company had been negligent in manufacturing faulty wires. He also argued that the company had breached its new product warranty. The man now seeks damages to compensate him for his truck, the burns and inhalation from the fire, and the heatstroke he suffered. The man testified that he had purchased the spark plug wires and spark plugs a few days before he serviced his truck. He testified that he purchased both items on April 10 and serviced the truck on April 11. The man testified that he recalled the date because he still had the receipt from the auto parts store, which indicated the date and time of the purchase. The company's attorney objects to the man's testimony as to the date of the purchase of the spark plug wires.

How is the court likely to rule on the company's objection to the admission of the testimony?