I don't understand some of the basics here.
Obviously, children can purchase all kinds of goods and services and those sales are binding. Kids don't get to order at Burger King and then get their money back. A 15 year old kid can't buy a pair of shoes at the mall and then demand the sale is not valid due to contract law in relation to a minor.
Is it the dollar amount or the fact that it's a vehicle that makes this different. Or both?
A car sale requires a transfer of title and this would be a verbal contract to transfer of title. As a then 15 year old, the kid can not legally be party to a verbal contract.
So, in summation, you asked for legal advice on LRC. You were told you were screwed and to just give the money back by the vast majority of posters. You IGNORED THE ADVICE OF THE 18TH MOST EDUCATED WEBSITE ON THE INTERNET!!!! And you were better off because of it.
LRC, esquire wrote:
So, in summation, you asked for legal advice on LRC. You were told you were screwed and to just give the money back by the vast majority of posters. You IGNORED THE ADVICE OF THE 18TH MOST EDUCATED WEBSITE ON THE INTERNET!!!! And you were better off because of it.
I know, I know. It's like the ultimate troll job.
LRC, esquire wrote:
So, in summation, you asked for legal advice on LRC. You were told you were screwed and to just give the money back by the vast majority of posters. You IGNORED THE ADVICE OF THE 18TH MOST EDUCATED WEBSITE ON THE INTERNET!!!! And you were better off because of it.
I have found that "legal advice" given by people in the profession is typically going to be the most conservative path one can take. So often it's too much emphasis on the worst case scenario without enough of a balanced viewpoint on "real world" probabilities and outcomes. Like, in this case, what was the probability of the seller actual suing you given the time, money, effort, minimal dollars at stake? And that's to say nothing of collecting if he actually won.
john utah wrote:
I don't understand some of the basics here.
Obviously, children can purchase all kinds of goods and services and those sales are binding. Kids don't get to order at Burger King and then get their money back. A 15 year old kid can't buy a pair of shoes at the mall and then demand the sale is not valid due to contract law in relation to a minor.
Is it the dollar amount or the fact that it's a vehicle that makes this different. Or both?
Again, this is state law and can vary significantly by jurisdiction. Most jurisdictions will enforce a contract against a minor for "necessities", which is basically food, clothing, and shelter. Vehicles are not considered necessities. There is also an old common law principle that the law will enforce a contract against a minor when the contract is advantageous to the minor.
I don't see a big down side here, I would respectfully tell the father that you made a completely legal sale with the kid and you expect him to honor it. Let him know you are taping the conversation if legal in your state. Let him file if he wants to go through the trouble. Easy to file small claims but the Dad will need to take time off to show, unless the appearance is after hours. You will also have the opportunity to file a continuance (postpone) at least once....another day off for the Dad. Many people no show to court.
Be respectful in court, do not lie. An auto sale to a minor is not automatically void, just easy to void. if you can show the kid and Dad knew what they were doing, the judge may rule the sale final. Small claims is real amateur hour for plaintiff/defendant AND the judges. Often a judge will start by asking people to try again to talk and work it out in front of the bench. The judge has a ton of leeway and is not going to think deeply about the finer points of contract law. If the Dad or kid lies to the judge they are toast. Same with you.
I would say worst case, Judge voids the deal and you are in the same spot, and tell him you now need 90 days to repay. By the way, it will take at least 30-60 days to get to court in most towns. He will probably need to file in your town. If you know the mileage, firstly they should not have been driving it; (if so why?) if they did, ask judge for standard IRS cost per mile (50 cents?) for wear and tear.
I have won 2 for 2 in small claims in NY: $3,500 from a public utility for wrecking my wall, and $3,000 from a guy who did not finish a construction project. Last time I went, I was the only case; 3 other cases "no-showed."
What will you do differently next time?
neanderthal dream wrote:
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.
Finisher wrote:
I hope you feel stupid for responding to a 3-year old thread without reading its conclusion. So. Stupid.
What did you learn? wrote:
What will you do differently next time? [quote]neanderthal dream wrote:
Recognize that 16-year-old boys are nice to look at, but not good for selling cars to.