Please help me be more concise!

[Cobb]

X, I would review all documentation you have like emails, txts, etc. How about just offer to refund the payment for the month she couldnt drive the car unless you got it in writing to her she needed insurance and you said she needed to get insurance or stop driving yo car.

If the insurance thing is in writing or agreement with her is the telling sign if he is wrong or if she is wrong.

[mcrews]

p-hank....your thought process is flawed.

he was accepting payments. that is NOT 'letting'.

[P-hack]

If, as you are bizzarely implying, you think he should continue to pay for insurance, then clearly you also agree it is his car.

reimbursing for use for something you borrowed isn't the same as leasing or purchasing. The car might as well be a shovel in this case.

I'm completely baffled at your dedication to this unknown lass. You've gone so far as to trump up charges against xist. Why don't you just ask him for her number?!?

[mcrews]

What is bizarre is you...."letting" his car....
First, do you have any legal training?
Second, he had a verbal contract. It is a fxxxed up verbal contract but it is valid on both parties.
But it is this simple:
He made an agreement and accepted money, he then altered the agreement. She didn't pay any less so there was no consideration given to her paying less. The contract is valid and he failed to perform.
You can make up all the shxx you want, but the facts as stated stand.

[mcrews]

Lenders take out ins all the time when the purchaser fails to by insurance. He can't not take the car away when she is making payments as agreed. That is theft.

[Xist]

Interesting show, chaps. So, you agree that it is written concisely?

[P-hack]

Lol, the agreement was obviously that she would bear the full cost of the car (including insurance) while he was allowing her to use it, excepting for a grace period. She recklessly abandon the terms of the "contract", her rights under any agreement are null and void. The true owner made his intent clear with the club (after checking with police and lawyers), and it became grand theft at that point in time, not the same as contract law, and there isn't a contract here to begin with, just an informal temporary arrangement that has gone south.

concise:
She broke the agreement by driving illegally, the car is his, she then stole it.

[mcrews]

What!!!!
Read a contract law text book then come and post.
Your really way below you pay grade and making up the law.
Please PROVE her 'agreement ' to carry ins.
Second, did here provide written notice of the intent to repossess the car? No.
Both if you are making it up as you go along.

[Vman455]

Where's the popcorn? This is entertaining.

[Cobb]

I dont think he stole his own car, he just put a club on the steering wheel and she removed it.

Sounds like a perfect mess for judge judy to figure out.