• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Being sued for car and thouroughly confused!

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

c187bp

Junior Member
I recently sold my 1968 mustang to a gentleman in another state. When he came to purchase the car I did not have the title because I had a loan on the vehicle. He said he would not pay me the $10,000 without the title. So, he said he would pay me $1,000 and upon receipt of the title he would send me the remaining balance. I made a contract using a regular piece of paper that was available at the time stating the above facts with both of our signatures. One week later, I received the title from my bank and sent it to this man. Three weeks later and after numerous attempts to get hold of this guy and get my money he finally emailed me and said that 1 day after he picked up the car, he had car trouble and had to have the vehicle shipped back to his state and he was currently having a mechanic look at it and he would let me know the results. Then, 4 days later, I received a notice in the mail that I was being sued $10,000 for fraud and the additional costs for repairs. It said that I misrepresented the vehicle, gave this guy a warranty, and I had told him that it could be driven anywhere. I never said it could be driven anywhere and I never gave him a warranty. I guess my question is how he can sue me for $10,000 when he only paid me the $1000 deposit? Should I represent myself or get a lawyer? Would my lawyer expenses be repaid if I countersued for them? Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
 


I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
c187bp said:
I recently sold my 1968 mustang to a gentleman in another state. When he came to purchase the car I did not have the title because I had a loan on the vehicle. He said he would not pay me the $10,000 without the title. So, he said he would pay me $1,000 and upon receipt of the title he would send me the remaining balance. I made a contract using a regular piece of paper that was available at the time stating the above facts with both of our signatures. One week later, I received the title from my bank and sent it to this man. Three weeks later and after numerous attempts to get hold of this guy and get my money he finally emailed me and said that 1 day after he picked up the car, he had car trouble and had to have the vehicle shipped back to his state and he was currently having a mechanic look at it and he would let me know the results. Then, 4 days later, I received a notice in the mail that I was being sued $10,000 for fraud and the additional costs for repairs. It said that I misrepresented the vehicle, gave this guy a warranty, and I had told him that it could be driven anywhere. I never said it could be driven anywhere and I never gave him a warranty. I guess my question is how he can sue me for $10,000 when he only paid me the $1000 deposit? Should I represent myself or get a lawyer? Would my lawyer expenses be repaid if I countersued for them? Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

My response:

Did you sign the title?

IAAL
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
c187bp said:
Yes, I did sign the title.

My response:

Then, this is simple. You sold your 1968 Mustang for $1,000.00. It's all over, and it's a done deal.

When you sign a title, and just as it said where you signed it, you release all ownership interest, and rights. A vehicle title, when signed, is the same thing as a Bearer Bond, or a Traveler's Cheque.

I have no idea why he'd be suing you. He sounds like a Dufus, just like you must be feeling like right about now.

IAAL
 

c187bp

Junior Member
So, he wouldn't have to show a receipt or anything saying that he did pay me the $9000? Thanks
 

I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

Senior Member
c187bp said:
So, he wouldn't have to show a receipt or anything saying that he did pay me the $9000? Thanks

My response:

That's right; he wouldn't. That's because the signing of the title came AFTER the written agreement. That's called an "novation". The court must presume that you knew what signing the title meant. Ergo, a "new agreement" (novation) must have occurred whereby you were satisfied (accord) with just the $1,000.00. Otherwise, you wouldn't have signed the title, right?

IAAL
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top