Please help me be more concise!

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Sorry, those payments are a gift without supporting documentation. He can offer a pro-rated refund, but that is it. If she got in an accident, he could be in debt for millions. She has no title to the vehicle, it isn't hers.

those payments are a gift without supporting documentation. liar.
Really, that's your advise....to lie????

he could be in debt for millions. so what? that's why lenders take out a policy if you don't get ins.
but why worry, just lie and claim she stole the car

And IF she had an accident, the holder of the title could/should use his insurance to cover.

BOTTOM line? what he did is just plain foolish. And now everybody wants to pretend that only she is at fault.

mybe I'm being too truthful and honest.....

[P-hack]

lol, white knights are hilarious (probably the same sort of thinking what got xist into this jam in the first place).

Tell me then, if this isn't a fixed term lease or a financing, as it obviously isn't, how long can she keep the car? Until she alone decides to give it back?!? Nope.

[mcrews]

but allowed her to make payments on my other car......and repossessed the car.
Damn, he sure talks and acts like a lender!!!
walks like a duck...must be a duck.
p-hack, words have meaning.......or is that why suggesting to lie comes so easy?

[mcrews]

as long as she makes payments.

come on .....ask a tough question.

[P-hack]

Originally Posted by mcrews

as long as she makes payments.

come on .....ask a tough question.

k, tough question, do you have a source for that?

edit: or is it your feelings for the poor maiden talking here?

edit: the poor maiden who lied about her insurance intentions.

And yes, the courts often refer to undocumented payments as "gifts", get a receipt.

[mcrews]

Contract Law.

every set of facts is limited. It's the nature of stories. Also, every set of facts is presented from a point of view....it's human nature.

When presented with a set of facts, you cant/shouldn't change the meaning of the words presented to make your point.

you keep redefining the words.
I keep using the words from the case.

Everyone should read the first 50 pages of a Contract Law (first yr) Textbook. You would be amazed at how verbal contracts evolved. Napkin contracts are also covered.
It is this simple. She gave him $$$, he gave her a car. He held the title waiting for the rest of the payments. He took the car back because.....she didn't have ins. Not a valid reason. Remember, when she 'bought it' he was covering her ins. THen he withdrew coverage. looks like he screwed up.

[P-hack]

She violated the contract in your words. The contract was void when the car wasn't insured anymore (you can't enforce an illegal situation), it doesn't imply that xist should continue paying for insurance, nor is there any time frame. There isn't really a contract here, verbal or otherwise.

The car is his, he let her use it, she then took it without authorization, obviously.

[mcrews]

The car is his, she took it without authorization, obviously.
Not in the fact pattern.
If your are going to argue the case....don't make stuff up.
prove it.

[mcrews]

FACT: WHen she made her first payment it was insured.
FACT: Seller committed fraud to do her a favor in keeping the ins.
FACT: his insurance should have ended at the moment of purchase. It didn't because he asked the ins co to extend coverage.

[P-hack]

there was no "purchase", he was letting her use it, till he didn't any more, that is his perogative (aside from being nice and pro-rating if appropriate, despite her reckless behavior with his property), it is his car, he can do that. When he clubbed it, she stole it.

And there is no contract here to speak of, it is his car and his responsibility to ensure it is used in accordance with the law, what source do you have that would imply anything else?