Car as gift

[adjusterjack]

This thread is getting patently ridiculous.

 

[Just Blue]

This thread is getting patently ridiculous.

******************************************

 

[quincy]

This thread is getting patently ridiculous.

Agreed.

 

[Ohiogal]

Yes. I think latigo was so focused on your name, Ohiogal, that he totally missed that the poster is from Nebraska.

Although he cited inapplicable Ohio cases, I am impressed by the time he invested in research.

That said, I think both latigo and Person98 need to read more carefully. I still can't figure out how anyone could think a question about car ownership should be posted in the Patent section of the forum. It's not even close to a patent issue.

OP owns the car and thus the TRADEMARK! Right? RIGHT? is that not how it works? RIGHT? Oh FFS! But Latigo wants to prove me wrong. Latigo and LDIJ should definitely marry. Then they could gang up on me as a married couple.

 

[quincy]

OP owns the car and thus the TRADEMARK! Right? RIGHT? is that not how it works? RIGHT? Oh FFS! But Latigo wants to prove me wrong. Latigo and LDIJ should definitely marry. Then they could gang up on me as a married couple.

Hahaha.

The car owned by Person98's dad probably has patented parts (the trademark belongs to the car manufacturer) but I still think there were far better places on the forum for Person88's question.

 

[justalayman]

15. Trusts: Proof. A party seeking to establish a constructive trust must prove by
clear and convincing evidence that the individual holding the property obtained
title to it by fraud, misrepresentation, or an abuse of an influential or confiden-
tial relationship and that under the circumstances, such individual should not,
according to the rules of equity and good conscience, hold and enjoy the property
so obtained.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2720764/in-re-louise-v-steinhoefel-trust/


Same verbiage here;

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59147fe1add7b0493446915a

I find absolutely nothing prohibiting a minor, as resident of Nebraska, from owning a motor vehicle. The issue of a disability due to age would not be relevant in the situation at hand as there is no purchase contract, or any other contract, to consider that would weigh against ownership of the car.

While the question, as understood by those that associate patent with a patent used in speaking of an official conferring of rights in an invention or design, a different definition could explain the op’s choice of topics;

3. adjective
You use patent to describe something, especially something bad, in order to indicate in an emphatic way that you think its nature or existence is clear and obvious.


To the op I suggest his ownership may be patently obvious and as such, the topic appears appropriate.

One thing that may not be patently obvious is the fact patently is synomomous with obviously so the phrase I wrote essentially means:
I suggest his ownership my be obviously obvious. Hmmm, what a language we have created.


And since I’ve performed my evening stretches, like in stretching a definition to defend the op’s choice of thread topics, I’ll take my leave.

Which in itself is a bit of an odd statement itself. While people often take their leave I’ve never heard of a person leaving their leave. Maybe they never mention that since by comparison it simply means I’m staying.

But why must one even give notice they are taking their leave, or more simply put; leaving? Are they so unremarkable that they must announce they are leaving so nobody, after s few moments, might say; hey, where’s justalayman? He was just here. He could have mentioned he was taking his leave.