Seriously ? There is no such thing as a "quasi-contract". I asked you a serious question - how were the kid and dad "unjustly enriched"? I was being polite in my response. But since you can't answer the question you go all "argumentum ad hominem" on me. Typical response from a dumass. Care to try again ? How were the kid and dad "unjustly enriched?". I'll be waiting for a semi-intelligent response.
Kipketer_Pumpkin_Eater wrote:
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").
Can you explain this in further detail? I have considered suing for damages if the court case goes their way. I looked at the car last week and found water all over the engine due to the hood being left open in a rainstorm. The battery was toast and there was water on and in many electrical components. I took a lot of pictures and figure I could make a case of it.
In the meantime, I'm still trying to negotiate with them. Problem is the dad is a mega-douche and I can't say two words without him going crazy on me.
I also think I can make a defense based on agency. The son used his dad's money, and the dad has repeatedly said his son is repaying what he doesn't get back. They've told me the dad gave him the money for the purpose of buying a car. An agent doesn't have to have capacity to enter into a contract.
Curious as to how this is going to end up. I have my idea, but with lawyers, you never know.
Deadman Running wrote:
Seriously ? There is no such thing as a "quasi-contract". I asked you a serious question - how were the kid and dad "unjustly enriched"? I was being polite in my response. But since you can't answer the question you go all "argumentum ad hominem" on me. Typical response from a dumass. Care to try again ? How were the kid and dad "unjustly enriched?". I'll be waiting for a semi-intelligent response.
There most certainly is such a thing as "quasi-contract". Our legal system is derived from the old British legal system. In the old British system, there were separate courts for law and equity (our system merged the two into a single civil court system). If you had a valid contract, you would go to the court of law for your remedies. If your contract was voidable (not void--important distinction as void contracts are usually not subject to equitable remedies (for example, you cannot claim unjust enrichment for a contract for murder or illegal drugs), you would get thrown out of the law court, but could argue your claim in the court of equity. Quasi-contract is an equitable concept in which the court can imply a contract when a legal contract is voided (usually due to statute of frauds, void for vagueness, or competency of a party) and one party will be unjustly enriched as a result. Depending on the circumstances (and what legalese your individual jurisdiction uses), you can have a claim for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, money had and received or promissory estoppel when you have a contract that has been voided. All are different claims that are based on the concept of quasi-contract. But in practice, before a small claims judge, quasi-contract is generally subsumed into the principle of "now that just ain't right."
Did the dad ever title the car in his name?
get used to it. wrote:
Give them the money back and take the car back. It isn't a legal sale.
_________________
Correct. The alternative is big problems and a record. yours.
Got it. Its not an actual contract, but a vehicle for the courts to use in determining equity. But, I still don't see how the kid was unjustly enriched ?
Mick not Lovin wrote:
Correct. The alternative is big problems and a record. yours.
A small claims court case that may or may not ever happen months or even years from now (remember, people have jobs and other things to do besides dicker around with court dates and paperwork for a "few hundred dollars" for a piece of s hit used car) is not that big of a problem quite honestly. If there was an actual lawsuit for one of every hundred threats made our legal system would be hopelessly overwhelmed.
Precious Roy wrote:
There most certainly is such a thing as "quasi-contract". Our legal system is derived from the old British legal system. In the old British system, there were separate courts for law and equity (our system merged the two into a single civil court system). If you had a valid contract, you would go to the court of law for your remedies. If your contract was voidable (not void--important distinction as void contracts are usually not subject to equitable remedies (for example, you cannot claim unjust enrichment for a contract for murder or illegal drugs), you would get thrown out of the law court, but could argue your claim in the court of equity. Quasi-contract is an equitable concept in which the court can imply a contract when a legal contract is voided (usually due to statute of frauds, void for vagueness, or competency of a party) and one party will be unjustly enriched as a result. Depending on the circumstances (and what legalese your individual jurisdiction uses), you can have a claim for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, money had and received or promissory estoppel when you have a contract that has been voided. All are different claims that are based on the concept of quasi-contract. But in practice, before a small claims judge, quasi-contract is generally subsumed into the principle of "now that just ain't right."
Thank you for this.
So my understanding is that the kid can void his contract, but I only have to return the current market value of the car. Correct? Which for all intents and purposes is about $150, the amount a junk yard would pay to come out and pick it up.
still wondering wrote:
Did the dad ever title the car in his name?
No, unfortunately. It would be case closed if he had. I looked over the title when I went out to look at the car. No such luck.
I certainly would not give them any money and would not take the car back.
If they take you to court, then show the photos to the judge.
It would probably be a wash and case dismissed by the judge.
Does anyone with LexisNexis access want to look up any case law? Also, I think the law (common/statute) could very well differ by state.
neanderthal dream wrote:
mdvf9-n2937 wrote:Everyone who thinks the kid totaled the car raise your hand
+1
I made an offer to buy the car back at a discounted price and they agreed. They failed to mention till I got there that the car had quit running.
We are going to court.
Obviously the car had quit or was running badly.
You can make the argument - why didn't the dad contact you 1 day after the sale. Why did it take him 3 weeks.
What was the car sold for?
What make, model & year?
What was the KBB?
Call their bluff.
neanderthal dream wrote:
Precious Roy wrote:There most certainly is such a thing as "quasi-contract". Our legal system is derived from the old British legal system. In the old British system, there were separate courts for law and equity (our system merged the two into a single civil court system). If you had a valid contract, you would go to the court of law for your remedies. If your contract was voidable (not void--important distinction as void contracts are usually not subject to equitable remedies (for example, you cannot claim unjust enrichment for a contract for murder or illegal drugs), you would get thrown out of the law court, but could argue your claim in the court of equity. Quasi-contract is an equitable concept in which the court can imply a contract when a legal contract is voided (usually due to statute of frauds, void for vagueness, or competency of a party) and one party will be unjustly enriched as a result. Depending on the circumstances (and what legalese your individual jurisdiction uses), you can have a claim for unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, money had and received or promissory estoppel when you have a contract that has been voided. All are different claims that are based on the concept of quasi-contract. But in practice, before a small claims judge, quasi-contract is generally subsumed into the principle of "now that just ain't right."
Thank you for this.
So my understanding is that the kid can void his contract, but I only have to return the current market value of the car. Correct? Which for all intents and purposes is about $150, the amount a junk yard would pay to come out and pick it up.
Contract law and the rules of equity are state law and can differ significantly from one jurisdiction to the next. You should consult with an attorney in your jurisdiction to determine your rights and how to proceed. If a court held that the contract was void because the kid was too young (incompetent), your rights to equitable remedies would be highly dependent on state law and may even be dependent on the court you are in (some states do not allow small claims courts to rule on equitable claims). Your situation is pretty straight forward. Ask around to find a friend or family member who knows an attorney. Most would be happy to chat with you for a few minutes as a favor to get you moving in the right direction. You can also look to see whether your local bar association or law school has a legal line/free law clinic.
Precious Roy wrote:
Contract law and the rules of equity are state law and can differ significantly from one jurisdiction to the next. You should consult with an attorney in your jurisdiction to determine your rights and how to proceed. If a court held that the contract was void because the kid was too young (incompetent), your rights to equitable remedies would be highly dependent on state law and may even be dependent on the court you are in (some states do not allow small claims courts to rule on equitable claims). Your situation is pretty straight forward. Ask around to find a friend or family member who knows an attorney. Most would be happy to chat with you for a few minutes as a favor to get you moving in the right direction. You can also look to see whether your local bar association or law school has a legal line/free law clinic.
Thanks again for your insight. I'll see if I can hunt someone down to talk to. I did find case law that says my state treats contracts with minors as voidable rather than void, so I would imagine equitable remedies would apply.
neanderthal dream wrote:
In the meantime, I'm still trying to negotiate with them. Problem is the dad is a mega-douche and I can't say two words without him going crazy on me.
Not that anybody cares, but thought I'd follow up with this now that the kid is 18.
I ended up trying to negotiate with the dad, but he turned into mega-douche again so I told him to lawyer up and walked away.
Never heard from them. Now that the kid is 18 he can no longer void the contract.
They knew what they were doing. Dad knew about the sale. After they realized the project was over their heads they tried to renege on the deal.
Thanks for the follow-up! I must have talked about this at least two times in between!
I didn't see this the first time, but I am glad that we got some closure on the whole ordeal. Thanks!
Thanks for the follow-up!
lawyer commando coffeemaker wrote:
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.
I'm curious: What if the kid bought a T-shirt at a dept. store? Is that an unenforceable sale, too? I don't know and I'm just trying to understand the difference.
Thanks.