17

There's a strip in Calvin & Hobbes where Calvin attempts to sell his mother's car. Briefly, Calvin (who's six years old) pesters his mother for money, but is told "no". Calvin asks for soap instead, and his mother is trying to work so she says "yes" just to get rid of Calvin. Calvin then attempts to sell his mother's car by writing "4 Sale Cheap" on the car with soap.

Legally, what would have happened if someone actually paid him cash, received the keys, and drove the car away? Clearly the sale would not be legal, but would the buyer be able to force the car to be sold for Calvin's price? Would it be theft? What about Calvin's mother - would there be any consequences for her?

I've tagged this with because this is where the strip is set.

3
  • 6
    In the USA do they have an equivalent of a "Certificate of Ownership"? In Ireland, the buyer couldn't legally claim ownership of the car without this being signed over to him.
    – komodosp
    Commented Aug 8 at 16:05
  • 2
    @komodosp yes, it's called "Title"
    – Trish
    Commented Aug 8 at 18:20
  • 3
    @Trish It's actually the "Certificate of Title." People colloquially refer to it as the "title," but in a legal context, title refers to the abstract rights of ownership. (Because titling is state-specific, new cars don't have one until first sale: they come with a "Manufacturer's Certificate of Origin" which the dealer provides to the state DMV, which issues a Certificate of Title to the buyer)
    – user71659
    Commented Aug 9 at 20:21

2 Answers 2

24

If this was the kid’s bicycle, which might be their property: There was a valid contract, which will be voided by the guardian (parent). When it is voided, you have to return the bicycle, and can try to get your money back from the six year old. If they took your $100 to buy a bag of marbles, sorry, the money is gone. Which is absolutely appropriate because the law doesn’t want you to exploit six year olds.

If this was the kid’s parents’ car: You would have known that this is not the kid’s car, that they have no right to sell it, so expect this to be treated as theft by the buyer from the parents.

@Allure: There was no contract between the parents and the buyer, so they have no obligations. Now the reason for all this is that a kid is in a much weaker position than an adult. Say grandma bought her grandchild a $1,000 bicycle for their birthday. A week later you offer them $100. To the kid that is more money than they could ever have imagined so he thinks they are making the best deal of their life (like I would think if I was offered a million for my car). So kids could easily be ripped off, which is why they get extra protection.

If you want to enter into a contract with a minor, you should make an offer that is fair (both for legal and for ethical reasons), and be prepared that you might lose if you are not careful. For example a contract with a healthy 12 year old "you cut my grass and I pay you $20" if the $20 is not exploiting them would be Ok. Worst case the parents void the contract before the grass is cut. After it is cut, you pay the money.

7
  • 9
    I'm kind of surprised that if the kid spent $100 on marbles, the law doesn't require the parents to compensate you (who are after all returning the bicycle). Can you elaborate on the exact law that's in play here?
    – Allure
    Commented Aug 8 at 9:45
  • 2
    @Allure good question, Ask it.
    – Dale M
    Commented Aug 8 at 11:02
  • 4
    @DaleM I don't understand your comment - I have asked it, haven't I?
    – Allure
    Commented Aug 8 at 11:22
  • 7
    @Allure No, you've written a comment. The "Ask Question" button is on the top left of your screen - but you know where it is because you already asked this question.
    – Dale M
    Commented Aug 8 at 11:26
  • 3
    @tuskiomi It's a Q&A site so more Q's and more A's is always a good thing, as long as they're on topic and civil. Even if the Q gets marked as a duplicate it should just mean it's now easier for people to find answers to their question. A lot of questions like yours end up just staying in comments, and some of them get answers in comments that aren't integrated into the answer, and fewer still get the answer updated to include the answer. So are you committing a rule violation or faux pas? No. But the site aspires to more visibility and searchability, so it's preferable to go that route. Commented Aug 10 at 2:42
12

The contract is void ab initio.

To sell a car, you need to have a good title in the car. Who is the owner of a car and who has good title is written down in the car's title documents, and a sale of a car goes with a title transfer document.

Calvin does not have good title, as he is not written down on the title of the car, his mother or father are. As such, he can't sell the car, and nobody can legally buy the vehicle from Calvin.

Because you can't sell something you don't own, any "buyer" taking the car would engage in a variety of crimes, starting with theft of a vehicle and any items in the car. Because Calvin is 6, he can't commit any crimes (yet).

6
  • 4
    Given that Calvin thinks his stuffed tiger is real, he could also plead insanity if he were criminally liable. "Hobbes made me do it."
    – Barmar
    Commented Aug 8 at 17:02
  • 2
    @Barmar: On the other hand, Hobbes does in fact move around the house while Calvin is at school; and there's the incident where Hobbes tied Calvin into the chair in such a way that it's literally impossible for Calvin to have done it, and his dad expresses incredulity.
    – Joshua
    Commented Aug 8 at 18:26
  • 3
    @Joshua Calvin would be as likely to plead everyone else's insanity as plead his own.
    – wizzwizz4
    Commented Aug 8 at 22:55
  • 2
    What if Calvin claimed to be selling the car as an agent working on behalf of the person listed on the title?
    – nick012000
    Commented Aug 10 at 1:42
  • @nick012000 -- I have a bridge I'd like to sell to you ...
    – PJB
    Commented Aug 10 at 21:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .