Question

Tommy McCartney is a sixteen-year-old high school student. He has worked forty hours per week at the local convenience store over the last year, and has diligently saved $6,000 for the purchase of his first car. While visiting a local car dealership, Tommy finds the “car of his dreams,” a used yellow Camaro. Tommy walks into the dealership, announces to the dealership owner that he is “ready to buy,” negotiates $6,000 as the purchase price, and leaves the dealership a proud car owner. Over the course of the next six months, Tommy drives the Camaro eight thousand miles, wears the tires thin, dents the left front fender, and regrets his purchase. He realizes that in two short years college will beckon, and he knows that his parents cannot afford to pay for his higher education. In short, he wants his money back. On a Saturday morning, Tommy returns to the car dealership, walks into the sales office, and hands the keys to the seller, asking for the return of his $6,000. The dealer chuckles, and then his look turns stern, saying “Son, I don’t owe you anything. You’ve just learned a lesson in the ‘School of Hard Knocks.’ The car is still yours, and the money is still mine!” Who will prevail? Is it legal and/or ethical to allow Tommy to escape his contractual obligations?

Answer 1

Explanation:

First of all, the dealer should not have sold the car to the sixteen year old boy without the presence of his parents or any guardian. It is illegal to have a contract with a child who is not legally allowed to drive the car before the age of eighteen.

Now secondly if the dealer has somehow sold the car to the boy, the boy cannot come back after few months and ask for returning his money because he purchased the car, the condition of the condition of the car got worse during the whole time when car was with him, and also there is no legal clause in the agreement which allows him to demand his money back after using the car for this long time. So demanding his money back from the dealer is totally unethical as well as illegal. The dealer is true that the car is still the property of the boy and the money is still the dealer's money.