Just came back from my law class and thought I would share something interesting that I learned today..."Don't ever sell your car to a person under the age of 18". It may sound like common sense anyway, but I doubt few people understand the entire impact of selling to a minor. It is best explained by a very true example.

I decide to sell my R to a 17 year old kid who has been saving up and is able to pay $17,000 for my car. He pays me the money and I sign over the title and all is good. Now say he has the car for 6 months and then the car gets totalled (or stolen). So lets say the car is wrecked and the tow truck picks up the car and asks what to do with it, the kid can say to take it to your house (the seller). At this point the kid can actually have it dumped at your house and inform you that he is backing out of the sale and wants his money back and you are legally bound to do so since contracts with minors are not binding on the minor's side.

Short summary, the minor sticks you with a scrap heap and gets his/her money back while at the same time collecting the insurance settlement for the vehicle and there is nothing that you can do.

Just thought I would share that interesting information. I am sure that if there are any lawyers on this board that they will confirm this is true.

Remember if a minor wants to buy your car to make sure you actually sell to their parent or legal guardian instead in order to protect yourself.

 

That's wack. I remember something about letting them test drive it too...

 

and on top of that i dont think any 17y/o is "smart" enough to do that.

or smart enough not to

what the law books leave out is where i rip of his finger one by one

 

Trust me, we went over a few case studies and it would not get thrown out.

The positive part is that all minors I know are not aware of the laws regarding minors and contracts. Thank Goodness...

I wish I knew the rules when I was younger. I sold some Carlton Fisk rookies for $12 and then a couple years later they jumped to $150 a piece. I would have loved the chance to get them back.

And yes there are always the physical safety issues for someone that would pull that, but then you will have even bigger issues to deal with.

 

that is not true. I've taken some law courses. In order to void the contract, the minor has to return the item in the same condition as he bought it in. For instance:

If i went to a convenience store and bought a drink, i cant drink half and then ask for my money back. I could give him a new drink, like the one i bought, and then get my money back, but half a drink doesn't count.

This is why you can't get your money back if you wreck a car. It's like returning a half drank bottle. but, if the kid didnt like the car after 3 months or so, he could void the contract. The car would have to be in the same condition as sold, and no unnecessary and abnormal things can have changed.

Technically he could void the contract with a damaged car. But you would only have to give him as much money as the damaged car was worth. So if its wrecked, maybe only 1/2 or so of the price, depending on the estimate.

Hope this helps.

-Sam

 

I also heard somewhere that say a kid got his car painted. After it was painted he can say hey I want my money back, I changed my mind. The body shop acutally has to give the money back and the car is left painted. And yes this does work. A few years ago looked up pro-bono cases which have proved so and alsa friend tried that after learning in class. Whats funny is that it acutally worked. Personally I wouldn't do it.

 

you know, i think i read a case like that too. dodson v. schrader or something.
too bad i dun remember it. hehe
let me go look it up...

edit-
ok, if my notes are right, its called the "infancy doctrine" and was basically designed to protect minors from their lack of judgment and “from squandering their wealth through improvident K’s w/ crafty adults who would take advantage of them in the marketplace”
now however, this rule is changing and the modern trend is - Where a K is a fair and reasonable one (by both parties), and minor has paid money and used the article purchased, that he ought NOT to be permitted to recover the amount actually paid, w/out allowing the vendor reasonable compensation for the use of, depreciation, and willful or negligent damage to item while in his hands. If there has been fraud or any unfair advantage on the part of the seller or if K is unfair, then rule does not apply

hope that helps. i guess some stuff you learn in school does come in handy.


[Modified by daebyuck, 9:46 PM 3/19/2002]