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

So you sold them a car you knew was going to break down?

Take a pause wrote:

So you sold them a car you knew was going to break down?

Of course not. It wasn't in perfect condition when I sold it, but I detailed every problem that I knew of both in my ad and when I sold it. I owned it for several years and it was reliable throughout that time.

They are likely to not return it in the same condition as they got it.

What then?

One way or another, it seems to me they are responsible for the damages, and I think there are damages, that's why the dad waited the three weeks.

I'm just curious.... wrote:

They are likely to not return it in the same condition as they got it.

What then?

One way or another, it seems to me they are responsible for the damages, and I think there are damages, that's why the dad waited the three weeks.

Nope. They are not responsible for damages since they legally don't own the car. Guess what ? If the kid or Dad drove the car drunk and got into an accident then the OP would still be liable since its his car. Luckily the car doesn't run so teh OPs liability is limited for acts of the kid and his dad - but they are not liable for any damage or repairs to the car. Best solution is to negotiate a deal now and get the car back. The OP will be money ahead if he negotiates a refund at a lower level than the original sales price. If he goes to court he will have to pay back the original sales price and eat the repair costs.

Deadman Running wrote:

Nope. They are not responsible for damages since they legally don't own the car. Guess what ? If the kid or Dad drove the car drunk and got into an accident then the OP would still be liable since its his car. Luckily the car doesn't run so teh OPs liability is limited for acts of the kid and his dad - but they are not liable for any damage or repairs to the car. Best solution is to negotiate a deal now and get the car back. The OP will be money ahead if he negotiates a refund at a lower level than the original sales price. If he goes to court he will have to pay back the original sales price and eat the repair costs.

No one has yet explained why the purchase of a car differs from any other purchase. Could my 16-year-old buy a burrito from Qdoba, eat half of the thing, then return the remaining half and demand his money back? By your logic, he should be able to.

A fifteen year old can purchase a car, a 2 year old can purchase a car and it's totally legal as long as he pays the entire amount. The only reason it usually doesnt happen is that a minor cant legally enter into a contractual agreement, ie. making a monthly car payment, or have the car registered in his name until he is insured. You need to keep the car insured until they change the title over to their name because you are still the legal owner of the car until that time. You need to file a release of liability with the DMV, and if they don't register the car within a set amount of time, A. You can actually sue them for the price of your insurance premiums, and B. They will have to pay the penalty when they do file.

Here's what I found - its not my logic - its the law:

"As a result, most contracts entered into by minors are not legally binding and can be voided by dis affirming them. The infancy doctrine allows minors to cancel a contract they dispute. This protects them from being taken advantage of by adults. Necessity of life purchases (food, clothing, etc.) however, usually cannot be dis affirmed. Despite this fact, merchants continue to sell to minors in spite of the infancy doctrine. Although refund policies are not required by law, the store’s refund and exchange policies are sufficient to cover minors who want to reverse a purchase."

So to answer your question - a minor probably cannot order a burrito eat half and return it (necessity of life purchase). But, a minor can buy a stereo or an Iphone or some other retail product and return it for a full refund by disaffirming the contract with the retailer.

This is actually true. The kids father is also responsible for the minors actions until he turns 18. So if the kid ruined the car and you decide to take it back you can sue the father for damages. With the fraudulant purchase you might even be able to report the vehicle stolen. With no bill of sale or paperwork they have no legal claim to the vehicle unless you signed over the title. And if you did sign over the title with an amount written on it the title becomes proof of sale. Call your DMV there are ways around this. We had a similar incident with a woman who bought our car, didn't title it and we started getting tickets in the mail from toll ways she was running. We weren't liable for the tickets. Once we submitted the release form to the DMV the problem wasn't ours anymore.

Sale was totally legal wrote:

A fifteen year old can purchase a car, a 2 year old can purchase a car and it's totally legal as long as he pays the entire amount. The only reason it usually doesnt happen is that a minor cant legally enter into a contractual agreement, ie. making a monthly car payment, or have the car registered in his name until he is insured. You need to keep the car insured until they change the title over to their name because you are still the legal owner of the car until that time. You need to file a release of liability with the DMV, and if they don't register the car within a set amount of time, A. You can actually sue them for the price of your insurance premiums, and B. They will have to pay the penalty when they do file.

Deadman Running wrote:

So to answer your question - a minor probably cannot order a burrito eat half and return it (necessity of life purchase). But, a minor can buy a stereo or an Iphone or some other retail product and return it for a full refund by disaffirming the contract with the retailer.

No, a minor cannot buy an iPhone (at least not one on contract) because he cannot enter a contract. A retail store won't let him make the purchase. The OP did. If for some reason the store sold the phone and set up the contract with Verizon or whatever then yes, the kid could return it.

I wasn't talking about buying it on contract. I was talking about just buying the Iphone at retail price.

THIS IS A SITE FOR RUNNING. GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE. NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS.

Contract Law 101

1. Offer/acceptance

2. Competence of parties

3. Consideration

4. Legal subject matter of contract

"You don't have to sue me to get my pants off"

I'm not sure if it applies here but quasi-contract would suggest that the OP would be entitled to remedies in such a case (where the minor and his dad are getting "unjustly enriched").

There is no quasi-contract. There is no legal contract at all. How are they being "unjustly enriched"?

Deadman Running wrote:

I wasn't talking about buying it on contract. I was talking about just buying the Iphone at retail price.

I think there's some confusion over what constitutes a contract. A contract is just an agreement. You don't have to have a signed document to have a contract.

Purchase and sale of an item is a contract. You are entering a contract when you buy a cup of coffee. You don't have to sign a document; you just have to agree to pay a price in exchange for a good or service to have a contract.

I think you missed the context of the post, it was in response to someone who said you couldn't buy an Iphone with a service contract if you were a minor. My post was to clarify that I wasn't talking about buying an Iphone with a service contract, but just the Iphone. Of course purchasing anything is a contract - but that's not what we were talking about.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

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.

Wrong. See this excerpt from Monroe Freedman's 1967 article on the responsibility of attorneys:

"In an earlier paper,1 I analyzed the three most difficult ethical problems

faced by the criminal defense attorney: (1) Is it proper to use crossexamination

to make a witness appear to be mistaken or lying when you

know that his testimony is accurate and truthful? (2) Is it proper to

put a witness on the stand when you know he will commit perjury? (3)

Is it proper to give your client advice about the law when you have reason

to believe that the knowledge you give him will tempt him to commit

perjury?

In a substantial number of instances, the attorney who recognizes

that he functions in an adversary system of criminal justice will be compelled,

however reluctantly, to answer yes to these questions. The adversary

system presupposes that the most effective means of determining

truth is by placing upon a skilled advocate for each side the responsibility

for investigating and presenting the facts from a partisan perspective.

Thus, the likelihood is maximized that all relevant facts will be ferreted

out and placed before the ultimate fact-finder in as persuasive a manner

as possible. It may be true that this system is not beyond criticism, but

the purpose of this paper and the previous one is not how to reform it,

but how to act responsibly within it."

Are you just disagreeing to disagree? Sounds like you know less about civil law than me. So gtfo and shut up unless you went to Law School and have some damn answers jack@ss

two most unprosecuted/under prosecuted crimes in this country:

>tax evasion

>perjury

People lie their @sses off in court all the time. DAs, their experts, defendants, prosecutors, witnesses... Yes, it's terrible. But the point is most people and stupid law school students and corporate ladder climbers and parents, don't give a sh-t. M0nies, sex, families, status, all the way hoe