A question of morals from a biased standpoint?

Question

2 roomates
each have their own vehicle
both vehicles crap the bed
roomate B moves out but leaves vehicle in driveway
roomate A asks roomate B if he can sell his car with his own car
roomate B gives his permission
3 months later somone buys the vehicles for $1000

Roomate A feels roomate B does not deserve half the cash based on:
1. he payed $60 for the ad
2. he still owes $540 on the loan
3. roomate B's vehicle sat in roomate A's driveway for 3 months
4. roomate B's vehicle was payed off so any cash he received was pocketed

Roomate B feels he deserved half the cash based on:
1. 2 vehicles 1 ad, give $30 to roomate A for half the cost of the ad
2. his vehicle is worth more than roomate A's vehicle
3. he is going to school and only has a part time job, he could use the cash


I hope I did not reveal which roomate I am, but what I am wondering if roomate A is justified in not giving roomate B half the cash.

Please consider both point of views. Thanks

Answer 1

the ideal thing would of been, to get a separate price for each car, but since this wasnt done, they were sold together, its taken that 500 was the price for each,,,,,automatic the half cost of the ad comes out from each, leaving 470

as to the fact that B left it in the driveway,,,it would matter at what point A asked about selling it,, was it soon? also a consideration is that no money was discussed for use of the driveway space,,,,,, and A did the work of placing the ad and selling the car

i see it as irrelevant who does or does not owe money(a loan) for their car
since each get 470 after the ad expense,,
i would give A 70 for his time and effort
leaving B 400 and A 600

Answer 2

Unless prior agreement on percentage or selling price was made, 50/50 of the money and ad costs is the most equitable. It's not room-mate B's concern that the other still owed on their vehicle or any other finacial circumstances. A should have had B towed away as abandoned.

Ultimately, A is not justified, in fact B has a legitimate claim against A in a court of law if they were the rightful owner of the vehicle.. One cannot simply "sell" another's car as there is the matter of a title transfer, even for scrap, without following state title transfer procedures.

Answer 3

i could side with both but i have to side with b minus maybe some money for the car sitting in the driveway for 3 months. The amount owed on the car doesnt matter, it makes no difference technically if the license owner of car b didnt sign the car over to a then b should get the half of the money, however there is that 3 month deal wher b wasnt living in the apartment or house and a should be compensated for the space that b took up in the driveway. so my final opinion would have to be 600 to a and 400 to be the extra 100 going to a because of the time the car sat in the drive.

Answer 4

Was a stupid idea to venture into. Selling someone else's car? That should never have crossed your mind. Calling a tow truck would have been the most logical thing to do.

The owners of the cars should get whatever profit was made off the sell of their car, regardless of who went about the trouble to place the ad. Roomate B still owned the car at the time of the sale, right? All roomate A was was a car salesman.

Answer 5

Roomate B should get $470.00. Reason B1 is the only relevant reason. B2 and B3 are irrelevant. Unless the roomate sold each vehicle at a different price for a total of $1,000, it must be assumed that, regardless of what each vehicle WAS worth, the current selling price for each vehicle was $500.00. The driveway is a non-issue, as is "I could use the money." Who couldn't use the money?

Answer 6

I think the answer really depends on the condition of the agreement when roommate B "left the vehicle in the driveway". If roommate B abandoned the car, ie no intent to retrieve or have towed, then I think that roommate A is probably within his rights to keep the money. However, if roommate B left the vehicle with intent to retrieve... had to have been stated BEFORE MONEY BECAME INVOLVED... ie stated to roommate A something to the effect of "hey, I don't have a place or a way to get this heap out of here right now can I leave it here until I figure it out"... something like that.... then roommate B is fully entitled to his/her "share", minus expenses. Meaning that if roommate B's car was worth more than he/she should get more.

Roommate A's car loan is irrelevant.

Answer 7

You don't state where roommate B moved to, was it a place that he could store said vehicle? If not I say the following: average cost per month for vehicle storage is $50 plus the $30 for the ad. Roommate B is still owed $320 by my calculations. Sorry if this is not what you want to hear.

Answer 8

Well room mate B should get his fare share of the money after paying for his half of the ad. As for the loan situation room mate A in not intitaled to room mate B's money unless there was some sort of contract. If not A gives B his rightful share and B will pay loan back when that person can.

Answer 9

as far as the money for the add roomate has to eat the loss because he had no writtem agreement saying they were splitting the cost. also as long as there was still a loan on the vehicle he has to give him the $$$ there is a financial responsibility to the finance company or holder of the loan.

Answer 10

Honestly, this is stuff you should have worked out going in.

I side with B on the basis of the value of the vehicle only, but again, this type of thing should have been taken into consideration at the beginning.