»

[brittany05]

Jurisdiction/Place:

A 17 year old named Billy tried to buy a car from Toyota dealership in California. The salesman said he was too young but he said his dad gave him the money, sent him there and approves of him buying a car.

He comes back with a 22 year old he just met and the salesman makes the bill of sale out to the 22 yr old and takes Billy's cashier's check for $7,500. He then drives them both to a notary public to exchange the title from the 22 yr old to Billy.

When Billy's dad hears of this he calls Toyota and tells them to take the car back. They refuse. He calls again with a lawyer and they say they can sell it for him but can't take it back. He takes the car to a storage place and tells Toyota they can pick it up any time. They never come get it.

Later that week Billy finds the keys and the title, takes it out of state and gets into 2 accidents.

Billy's dad sues Toyota despite the car being in not running condition anymore.

Who would win in this case and why? I'm really confused. I'd think Toyota would win because although they knew what Billy was up to, they technically did nothing wrong because they "sold" it to the 22 year old and minors are allowed to own a car in CA so long as they have a valid drivers license.

[lwpat]

Sounds like a homework problem to me. What is the Dad suing them for? There is no law that says they cannot sell to a minor, just that the contract to pay is voidable by the minor. If the 22 year old is on the note, then he is the one responsible for paying the balance. Not enough facts.