Consumer Law, Warranties oral agreement to buy new van

[John1944]

My ex-wife father promised to buy her a van when he received a retro check from the military, there were several witness who will verify this, before it arrived he had a stroke, she(daughter) moved in with him to give 24/7 care. Shortly after this the check arrived, she then had power of attorney, she asked him again if he wanted to buy the van for her, he said yes, and told her to put it in her name, in case he died it would not be tied up in probate, she did. Shortly after, her brother found out, and is taking legal action saying she stole the money. My question is, does she have legal right to that vehicle by virtue of the oral promise, as witnessed by many witnesses, and the fact that it is in her name, with possession being 9/10ths of the law so to speak?

 

[Michael Wechsler]

This may be a promise to make a gift rather than an oral contract. The difference between the two is the absence of consideration -- I give you something of value and in return you give me something of value. Did he say to your ex "I will give you a van if you move in with me and take care of me"? That might be considered an oral contract. Here it seems that he said that he'll get her a van when the check comes in. That might not be sufficient, but there are exceptions... for example, the concept of reliance where one induces another to act on reliance of a certain statement to their detriment.

SHORTLY AFTER THIS THE CHECK ARRIVED,SHE THEN HAD POWER OF ATTORNEY, SHE ASKED HIM AGAIN IF HE WANTED TO BUY THE VAN FOR HER, HE SAID YES, AND TOLD HER TO PUT IT IN HER NAME, IN CASE HE DIED IT WOLD NOT BE TIED UP IN PROBATE, SHE DID. SHORTLY AFTER, HER BROTHER FOUND OUT, AND IS TAKING LEGAL ACTION SAYING SHE STOLE THE MONEY. MY QUESTION IS,DOES SHE HAVE LEGAL RIGHT TO THAT VEHICLE BY VIRTUE OF THE ORAL PROMISE, AS WITNESSED BY MANY WITNESSES, AND THE FACT THAT IT IS IN HER NAME, WITH POSSESSION BEING 9/10THS OF THE LAW SO TO SPEAK?

I think that the "9/10s" comment is more a general assumption rather than law. It would seem to me, from the limited facts given, that the best arguments made are
(1) If true, there was an agreement witnessed by several dozen people that was already completed, the car was bought in exchange for services rendered.
(2) She provided and was induced to provide the extensive services in reliance of the promise to buy the van for her.
(3) He made a gift to her of the van because of the services.

I wouldn't say that possession is everything, especially when there is someone who has power of attorney over someone who could questionably be incompetent. But if there are witnesses to the above, that seems a pretty strong indication that she has a right to it. Of course, we don't know all the facts here...