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.