Al offers $50 to Donald for Donald's car, which is worth $5,000, and Donald accepts. A court would void the agreement due to its fundamental unfairness.
2007-03-26 18:09:43 · 9 answers · asked by the ramonanizer 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Would depend on the circumstances..."fundamental unfairness" would only apply if Al was trying to exclude the $5,000 car as being an asset to his creditor (or bankruptcy court), ex-wife, or estate of someone he is managing.
If Al owned the car free and clear, didn't have any other litigious obligations and just liked Donald and wanted to almost give his car away to Donald because he liked him, wanted a guy down on his luck to have a chance, or wanted implied sexual favors from Donald, then he could sell him his $5,000 car for $50.
However, if Al has relatives that want his money for any reason, they may seek to have the agreement nullified as Al was not "in his right mind" or "competent" to sell his car for $50 when it was obviously worth much more. Donald's best defense for keeping the car at his point would be to argue that Al and him had a very, very, very close "personal" relationship and they car was nearly a gift due to that relationship and that Donald only paid Al anything as he wanted to be fair to Al and not take advantage of him and his feeling for Donald.
2007-03-26 18:21:50 · answer #1 · answered by bottleblondemama 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IT would all depend on Al and Donald's mental state, and whether or not they both understood what they were doing when it happened. As long as both Al and Donald were of sound mind when they made the agreement, it's legally binding as soon as that title is notarized. Gifting traditionally only works for family members when applied to cars sold between civilians. So yes, it's false.
2007-03-27 01:19:51 · answer #2 · answered by EzminJ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True. If Donald changes his mind on the deal and gets the judicial system involved they could pass judgment that the agreement was unfair, thus voiding the agreement.
The judicial system was designed to protect the people and in this case they would be fulfilling their purpose by protecting Donald if he asked for their assistance with this issue.
2007-03-27 01:23:56 · answer #3 · answered by Chris N 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
False as long as Donald was of sound mind when the agreement was made
2007-03-27 01:19:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
False! They entered a contract and both agreed to the exchange, period! Donald could have even just gifted the car to Al...
2007-03-27 01:14:39 · answer #5 · answered by CLUELESS IN SEATTLE-JANE 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
False.
2007-03-27 05:29:36 · answer #6 · answered by kitty fresh & hissin' crew 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think this'd apply to like real estate becuase of land's actual worth and its' repetative use... but a car is a 'private good' so i think if it's paid off for and there's no bank financing a loan then yea the agreement is solid
2007-03-27 01:25:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
false
2007-03-27 01:17:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
true and false
2007-03-27 01:13:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋