Legal advice: Sold car to a minor and now dad wants to sue

Give them the money back and take the car back. It isn't a legal sale.

what the other guy said. contracts with minors are unenforceable. give him the $$$ back and get your car back and try to find another buyer.

neanderthal dream wrote:

1) There was no bill of sale.

2) Payment was made in cash.

They have nothing to back up their claim and it becomes my word against theirs.

What is "your word" in this scenario? That the kid payed you less than he actually did? I'm not a lawyer, but I can give you some human advice. If you return all the money, you can...

1) Save yourself a load of aggravation

2) Sell the car to someone else for a higher price (if you actually gave the kid a deal)

3) Not be a liar

You will lose this case in 30 seconds. He has your car and a signed title, you obviously intended to sell it to him. What is your word going to be? Did you advertise this car anywhere with a price?

Just give the money back and save everyone some hassle. Maybe tell the dad you are keeping $200 for three weeks of wear and tear.

No, I will not do your first Contracts assignment for you.

knox harrington wrote:

3) Not be a liar

I don't see this as a moral issue. I am 99% sure the dad was in the loop on the decision, especially considering the kid paid with his dad's money. Waiting 3 weeks to call is awfully fishy. Plus, the dad acted like a jerk on the phone and left me with no desire to cooperate with him.

In law suits, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, am I correct? If they have no proof the contract was with the kid, they have no case. No bill of sale means I can say I sold it to the dad. That's the way I see it.

landshark wrote:

You will lose this case in 30 seconds.

He will lose this case in months if even that soon, assuming the parents find it worthwhile to press the matter in court.

And in the meantime someone else will be in possesion of his car he will eventually have to pay to get back.

I hope your job doesn't entail anything more strategic than deciding on Splenda vs Nutrasweet for the boss's meetings.

landshark wrote:

And in the meantime someone else will be in possesion of his car he will eventually have to pay to get back.

I hope your job doesn't entail anything more strategic than deciding on Splenda vs Nutrasweet for the boss's meetings.

Lawsuits are time consuming, expensive hassles even if you are certain to win, and the parents may very well find it more worth their while to just resell some shi tty used car rather than wait a very long time to attempt to wring money out of some guy.

I don't even understand your defense. So what if there is no bill of sale and the sale was in cash? When the teen shows up with title signed over by you, what are you going to say? Are you going to deny that you used to own the car? How will you explain how he is holding in his hands the title to a car that you previously had the title to and is driving the car you used to own? Are you going to say he stole the title document that you signed and also stole the car?

It seems that there could be a question about the amount you need to pay back to him because he will have to prove that. That said, you have no defense based on substance, procedure, ethics or morals. If you go to court and offer your "defense", the judge will rightly determine that you are a liar and believe whatever the kid says about how much he paid.

Esq here wrote:

I don't even understand your defense. So what if there is no bill of sale and the sale was in cash? When the teen shows up with title signed over by you, what are you going to say? Are you going to deny that you used to own the car? How will you explain how he is holding in his hands the title to a car that you previously had the title to and is driving the car you used to own? Are you going to say he stole the title document that you signed and also stole the car?

Since the kid isn't old enough to file a lawsuit, his dad will have to be the plaintiff. It would be quite easy to say I sold it to his dad, and they have no way to prove otherwise.

I've encouraged the dad to just resell the car, but he refused. Since I cut the kid some slack on the deal, they should come out ahead, plus avoid the hassle of small claims. The fact he won't consider it is another red flag to me.

So your "defense" is, by your own admission, a complete lie? What do you really want to know? If it were true that you sold the car to an adult, you would have a defense. But you didn't. You can't just go in to court and tell a bald faced lie. Even if you do try, I'll bet it doesn't work. You are going to say the dad was there and in reality he wasn't? Chances are quite good the judge will figure out the truth. While the plaintiff has the burden of proof, the burden is just preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiff will have at least two witnesses and you will just have yourself. What was the dad wearing when you supposedly sold him the car. Was he at work at the time?

Esq here wrote:

So your "defense" is, by your own admission, a complete lie? What do you really want to know? If it were true that you sold the car to an adult, you would have a defense. But you didn't. You can't just go in to court and tell a bald faced lie. Even if you do try, I'll bet it doesn't work. You are going to say the dad was there and in reality he wasn't? Chances are quite good the judge will figure out the truth. While the plaintiff has the burden of proof, the burden is just preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiff will have at least two witnesses and you will just have yourself. What was the dad wearing when you supposedly sold him the car. Was he at work at the time?

All good points, thanks for your input.

I'm looking for viable defenses and how this could go badly for me if it goes to court. I feel like I'm being scammed by this guy and want to make it as difficult as possible for him if he chooses to sue.

Scammed by this guy??? Total troll giveaway. If anyone, the kid scammed you. Now you're planning on scamming the guy. The only one who hasn't scammed anyone is the very person you accuse of scamming. I hope you get screwed and the court orders treble damages. Know what that is? Look it up.

You have no viable defense. Just a little liar taking advantage of a kid is what you are.

Ooops wrote:

The only one who hasn't scammed anyone is the very person you accuse of scamming.

Surely you must be trolling. The car was purchased with the dad's money, he obviously knew what was going on.

Which brings up a point: If I could get them to admit in court the money was the dad's, is that enough to pin the purchase on him as the buyer?

neanderthal dream wrote:

I'm looking for viable defenses and how this could go badly for me if it goes to court. I feel like I'm being scammed by this guy and want to make it as difficult as possible for him if he chooses to sue.

You are looking for somebody to tell you to commit purjery or how to do so more effectively.

This is not legal advice. Lawyers are prohibited from assisting you in this scenario.

Drive to Mexico and don't come back for a year. It will blow over. Meanwhile train with the Tarahumara.

Your viable defense:

n. d.: Your honor, I am ignorant of the ways of the law.

Your Honor: Yes, indeed you are.

n. d.: I throw myself at the mercy of the court.

Your Honor: Give these good people back their money, plus an additional $1,000 to cover their pain and suffering.

n. d.: Say what!

Your Honor: Did you hear me?

n. d.: Yes.

Your Honor: Pay these people immediately, right here in front of me.

n. d.: I am innocent until proven guilty.

Your Honor: Bailiff!!!

n. d.: What????

Your Honor: 30 days in the slammer for you...

You should call the police and report the car stolen. Tell them you never met the kid and deny ever receiving any money.