The "hoops" you are being asked to jump through are not for my benefit but for the benefit of the original poster from the unknown state/country.
If you do not have any legal support for your answers perhaps you should not be providing answers.
I wasn't trying to start a quarrel with Jane. But the thread raises something that has troubled me.
We learn early on that the title to personal property can pass from seller to purchaser without regard to the payment of the purchase price. That is that payment can be deferred and yet ownership can be vested in the purchaser.
For example a lady sees a hat in a millinery store she is fond of. Asks a clerk the price of the hat, agrees to the price and tells the clerk to charge her store account and will return the following day to take delivery of the hat.
Ergo, title to the hat passed to the customer when the clerk agreed to sell it and she agreed to purchase it. NOV the selling price was deferred.
But would it hold true were we to substitute a motor vehicle in place of the hat? And if not, why?