Traded cars, signed titles

[concernedtrader]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington

I traded vehicles straight across, mine was 81 Ford Bronco, hers was 91 Honda Civic. She responded to my ad on Facebook, came and saw my truck, took it for a drive, really liked it. I drove her car and liked it. We decided to wait the night. The next day she texted me saying she wanted to trade. I said OK, but wanted to make sure the Honda would make it cross country, and wanted to take it to a mechanic. We decided to trade cars, but not titles till I could have Honda looked at. The next day she said she wanted to cancel trade. I said OK. When she came to trade back, she pulled in to my driveway with my truck, got out, and I said "Here is the key, your car is ready" She replied with " I really love the Bronco, I want to keep it" So we agreed to sign over titles, and make the trade. I said I would like to still get the Honda checked out, which she said was fine. The next day she texted me saying she thought the truck was too big for her, and she wanted to trade back. I said only if it doesn't pass an inspection. Now she is threatening to take me to court.

Question: Does she have any legal rights after signing over the title?

 

[justalayman]

have the titles actually been signed and delivered to the other party? If so, good luck rescinding the sale regardless of what you find at the mechanic.

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Washington

I traded vehicles straight across, mine was 81 Ford Bronco, hers was 91 Honda Civic. She responded to my ad on Facebook, came and saw my truck, took it for a drive, really liked it. I drove her car and liked it. We decided to wait the night. The next day she texted me saying she wanted to trade. I said OK, but wanted to make sure the Honda would make it cross country, and wanted to take it to a mechanic. We decided to trade cars, but not titles till I could have Honda looked at. The next day she said she wanted to cancel trade. I said OK. When she came to trade back, she pulled in to my driveway with my truck, got out, and I said "Here is the key, your car is ready" She replied with " I really love the Bronco, I want to keep it" So we agreed to sign over titles, and make the trade. I said I would like to still get the Honda checked out, which she said was fine. The next day she texted me saying she thought the truck was too big for her, and she wanted to trade back. I said only if it doesn't pass an inspection. Now she is threatening to take me to court.

Question: Does she have any legal rights after signing over the title?

Nope. Once the titles were signed and exchanged, it became a done deal. Unless there is an issue that prevents registering the vehicles, there doesn't appear to be a legal justification to reverse the transaction. Especially when she had several days to evaluate her needs. If she wasn't sure, she shouldn't have completed the title trade.

Let her sue. I see no reason she could succeed.

 

[latigo]

have the titles actually been signed and delivered to the other party? If so, good luck rescinding the sale regardless of what you find at the mechanic.(?)

What is so sacred and conclusive about the fact the vehicle titles were signed and exchanged that it would prevent the OP from voiding the trade if upon a mechanical inspection it should appear that the woman had materially misrepresented the condition of the Honda?

E. g., odometer rollback or undisclosed previous collision damage.

It appears to me that the report of a satisfactory mechanical inspection of the Honda was a condition precedent to concluding the trade. And if an unfavorable inspection resulted, the OP would not be committed to the deal and could demand the return of and re-transfer of title to the Bronco.

And if the OP was not bound to the deal prior to a satisfactory inspection of the Honda, then neither was the woman who can’t reach the foot pedals in the gas-guzzling Bronco.

IOW, short of a favorable inspection of the Honda there was no mutuality of obligation, hence no contract.

 

[tranquility]

What is so sacred and conclusive about the fact the vehicle titles were signed and exchanged that it would prevent the OP from voiding the trade if upon a mechanical inspection it should appear that the woman had materially misrepresented the condition of the Honda?

Because you'd have to get a court order to force a person to sign back title?

For a Civic over 20 years old and a Bronco over 30 years old? Um..you taking this one on contingency?

 

[justalayman]

latigo;3157868]What is so sacred and conclusive about the fact the vehicle titles were signed and exchanged that it would prevent the OP from voiding the trade if upon a mechanical inspection it should appear that the woman had materially misrepresented the condition of the Honda?

OP shouldn't have signed the title until contingencies were removed. He screwed up and if the girl is not agreeable to trading back, the time and trouble to deal with the issue could be a pain in the rump. Could he force it to be done? Sure.

IOW, short of a favorable inspection of the Honda there was no mutuality of obligation, hence no contract.

I absolutely agree. Now, if the girl doesn't, all the OP has to do is sue her. I know that if I had to take time from work to deal with something like this in court I would lose more by missing work than what I would win given the vehicles involved. A prudent person doesn't do things just for the principle.

 

[concernedtrader]

dont want to trade honda back

OK, I think we've got it backwards. I owned Bronco, traded for Honda, SHE wants to trade back. I got satisfactory inspection on Honda, only minor work to ready it for cross country trip. I do not want to trade back.She wants to take me to court, is that possible?

OP shouldn't have signed the title until contingencies were removed. He screwed up and if the girl is not agreeable to trading back, the time and trouble to deal with the issue could be a pain in the rump. Could he force it to be done? Sure.



I absolutely agree. Now, if the girl doesn't, all the OP has to do is sue her. I know that if I had to take time from work to deal with something like this in court I would lose more by missing work than what I would win given the vehicles involved. A prudent person doesn't do things just for the principle.

 

[tranquility]

Yes, it is "possible". And, as Latigo said, it may even be successful. But, it will not be in small claims as there is titling involved. Also, as justalayman said, that titling issue of signing could presumptively show all conditions were resolved. I don't think it would be worth the effort to sue on such a low amount with presumptions against her.

Finally, since each vehicle is worth around $500, there is a statute of frauds issue for anything not in writing. What is in writing here? Bueller....Bueller....?

 

[concernedtrader]

Yes, it is "possible". And, as Latigo said, it may even be successful. But, it will not be in small claims as there is titling involved. Also, as justalayman said, that titling issue of signing could presumptively show all conditions were resolved. I don't think it would be worth the effort to sue on such a low amount with presumptions against her.

Finally, since each vehicle is worth around $500, there is a statute of frauds issue for anything not in writing. What is in writing here? Bueller....Bueller....?

Nothing in writing, and I am leaving the state in a little over a week. Thank you very much for the knowledge.

 

[tranquility]

You have the signed titles in writing.

 

[concernedtrader]

You have the signed titles in writing.

HAHA, Indeed!!! Already transferred to my name as well. I think she will just have to get used to the Bronco.