Signed contract for car as minor

[stealth2]

My response:

Your stuck.

Here's more concerning why you're stuck

Do you need a homework assignment?

 

[Eternally Lost]

There is one piece of your own advice that i am taking. To stop wasting my time with this dialouge. i have NOTHING to prove to you. I am taking care of my business as best that i can but was looking for some helpful advice along the way which obviously will not be coming from you. And i thought you couldnt care less... if you were secure in your occupation maybe you would be supportive of a young person aspiring to be involved in the legal field rather than involve yourself in petty disagreements with them. Therefore I will have to be the better person and end this now. Good night. Have a good day at work tomorrow.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Do you need a homework assignment?

My response:

DAMN!!

You caught me with my pants down!!!

IAAL

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

There is one piece of your own advice that i am taking. To stop wasting my time with this dialouge. i have NOTHING to prove to you. I am taking care of my business as best that i can but was looking for some helpful advice along the way which obviously will not be coming from you. And i thought you couldnt care less... if you were secure in your occupation maybe you would be supportive of a young person aspiring to be involved in the legal field rather than involve yourself in petty disagreements with them. Therefore I will have to be the better person and end this now. Good night. Have a good day at work tomorrow.

My response:

Pal, you're the one getting bent out of shape, not me!

You just don't like the fact that I'm not supporting your belief that, somehow, you're entitled to legal relief. You're not. It's just that simple.

Also, I just wanted some answers to my latest questions, but when I hold your hand to the fire by asking you what you mean by "multi-tasking" and "taking action", it tells me that you're lying.

There's a jury instruction that discusses giving evasive answers. But, you'll learn about that in law school.

IAAL

 

[tigger22472]

I have some questions for the poster:

1. What was the purpose of buying the car?
2. Did you need it to get back and forth to a job?
3. Were you living at home or were you living somewhere else even though you were 17?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

I have some questions for the poster:

1. What was the purpose of buying the car?
2. Did you need it to get back and forth to a job?
3. Were you living at home or were you living somewhere else even though you were 17?

My response:

Tigger, the kid isn't coming back. He's pissed off that he's not getting the "right" answers, and the fact that I caught him lying. Although, I imagine he already knew he didn't have a prayer, he was hoping that someone would give him a magic answer.

His arguments in favor of his position hold no water. In fact, they work against him. Remember, he said, "if you were secure in your occupation maybe you would be supportive of a young person." That's a typical "I'm not reading what I want to read, so stop shoving what I already know down my throat" response. It's knee jerk.

Also, the is very telling when he says, "in the state of Florida you HAVE to have insurance in order to drive a car legally. Tell me something else, when do you buy a car and NOT plan to keep it?" That's just my point. The kid "planned to keep it." And no, you don't have to buy insurance. The kid could have chosen to park the vehicle, mull over the purchase, and then decide to disaffirm the contract. But, with the above statement, we all know now that that wasn't his "intent" when he made the purchase.

You see, everything he did since turning 18 points to his intent to affirm the contract, and that's why he won't win in court.

I rather doubt the kid will come back because these appear to be difficult concepts to him.

IAAL

 

[tigger22472]

My response:

Tigger, the kid isn't coming back. He's pissed off that he's not getting the "right" answers, and the fact that I caught him lying. Although, I imagine he already knew he didn't have a prayer, he was hoping that someone would give him a magic answer.

His arguments in favor of his position hold no water. In fact, they work against him. Remember, he said, "if you were secure in your occupation maybe you would be supportive of a young person." That's a typical "I'm not reading what I want to read, so stop shoving what I already know down my throat" response. It's knee jerk.

Also, the is very telling when he says, "in the state of Florida you HAVE to have insurance in order to drive a car legally. Tell me something else, when do you buy a car and NOT plan to keep it?" That's just my point. The kid "planned to keep it." And no, you don't have to buy insurance. The kid could have chosen to park the vehicle, mull over the purchase, and then decide to disaffirm the contract. But, with the above statement, we all know now that that wasn't his "intent" when he made the purchase.

You see, everything he did since turning 18 points to his intent to affirm the contract, and that's why he won't win in court.

I rather doubt the kid will come back because these appear to be difficult concepts to him.

IAAL

I agree that he was sunk but I was trying to make a point that couldn't seem to get through to people when I took this course last term. They heard 'minor' and 'contract' and OF COURSE it wasn't valid as they didn't have legal capacity. I was just trying to pull out the other circumstances in which it would have been valid BEFORE he turned 18 even. But... that's ok... He'll learn

 

[fronty]

Okay….

I’m not trying to throw fuel on the fire, but I can see the original poster’s point. Can you blame him for seeking more than one opinion or additional information? It doesn’t seem like you care for people to continue a thread after you have expressed your opinion. Is that really fair? Is this because you are an attorney and feel like laypersons shouldn’t be able to contradict your opinion or inquire further. There is a chance other people may have additional insight or another approach that can be utilized by people seeking advice. I’m not saying that the original poster’s contract hasn’t been ratified; there has been a significant amount of time that has elapsed since he reached majority. I don’t think, however, one could have made a decent assessment of his situation without digging into it a little deeper. The only reason I asked a few more questions to the OP is because of your initial responses.

If you're 18 or over now, then you "affirmed" the contract, and the car is now yours. It's a done deal.

Had you disaffirmed the contract, in writing, prior to your 18th birthdate you would have been able to void the contract.

As you know, a person (who entered into a contract as a minor) has a reasonable amount of time after reaching majority to disaffirm a contract. What if the OP would have just reached majority a week ago and took your advice? He could have disaffirmed the contract even though you told him it has already been ratified. I guess all I'm saying is that I can't blame this guy for being persistent, and I actually commend him for doing so. Unfortunately, a significant amount of time has elapsed since he reached majority, so this would be a hard case to get a favorable judgment on. I debated on whether I should post this message or not because I don't really want any negative responses, but if you feel compelled to do so, let me have it.


p.s.

If a vehicle is registered in Florida, you have to have insurance on it regardless if you drive it or not.