Woman says she bought car under influence of bipolar disorder, sues dealer

[The Straight Story]

Woman says she bought car under influence of bipolar disorder, sues dealer


TROY, Mich. — She went in for an oil change, but came out with a brand-new car.

Now a Michigan woman is suing the auto dealer, saying it took advantage of her bipolar disorder to sell her the $32,000 vehicle.

Amy Berner tells the Detroit News she suffers from "impulsivity and difficulty in decision-making,'' and the dealer used that to get her to sign a $444 per month lease for a Mazda CX-9.

Berner says she had gone to the dealer for an oil change for her car, which she had bought just six months earlier.

Berner's husband says the dealer agreed to take the car back if it got a doctor's letter detailing Berner's condition. He says the letter was sent, but the dealer delivered the CX-9 anyway, and left the keys in the mailbox.


http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1051131.html

[Quakerfriend]

1. Compulsive buying is one of a myriad of characteristics

which can define bipolar disorder. Sadly, this has destroyed families.

My mother, who was diagnosed at age 76, bought at least 6 cars for one of her 'friends'.

[alarimer]

2. never mind

I guess I was wrong. Never heard of a CX-9. My Mazda dealership didn't have them at the time I bought my Mazda 3.

If she's THAT impulsive why didn't someone else go with her? Her family and friends muct know about this.

[zanne]

194. Denial is very strong with some bipolar people....

They really don't think there's anything wrong with them. Alot of bipolar sufferers are undiagnosed; even a family doctor may see only one side of the disorder for years on end.

[pitohui]

227. oh please the real reason

undiagnosed? only if the doctor is a moron, the family and friends know damn well there's a problem, unfortunately they enable and enable and enable

if the woman can't pay for the car, jail her for fraud, actions need to have consequences or bipolar people turn into monsters

[Redneck Socialist]

225. sorry, wrong spot

[Proud2BAmurkin]

3. ridiculous excuse maker

dumbest thing I ever heard.

[Colobo]

4. She has NO right to sue

It's not the dealers fault that she is bipolar!

[kirby]

9. Dealer violated the law

If I recall, isnt there a period of time between when a contract is signed that a person has to change their mind. It varies by state.

In this case apparently the husband spoke with the dealer and they agreed to cancel the contract (PRIOR to delivery of the vehicle). However, they
did not honor their own offer and delivered the vehicle anyway AFTER receiving a doctors note confirming the womans mental disorder.

[NashVegas]

130. deleted

apparently grace period laws vary. It was a 5-day period when I lived in NY.

[depakid]

29. Of course she does.

The dealer violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act because it took advantage of Berner's disability, even after being provided documentation by her therapist.

She may have had a common law right to rescind as well if she can prove that she was of unsound mind and/or there was some undue influence going on.

See a more detailed article: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070313/METRO02/703130353/1009

The bottom line is that there are legal and equitable remedies under Michigan Law...

Indeed most states have provisions like this -and you can sometimes get a nice judgment against businesses who violate them. See: 445.903 Unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in conduct of trade or commerce;)

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/consumer_protection_act_54984_7.htm

[pitohui]

228. i hope she is never allowed to buy a car or anything of value ever again

i'm done w. bipolar people and their lies

and make no mistake, this is what it's about, she changed her mind, and now it's the dealer's fault

yeah right

[rebel with a cause]

57. It is the dealers fault that they use the aggressive sales tactics they use.

My daughter and I went to look at a car the other night (half an hour before the dealership closed), and three and one half hours later were the proud new owners of it. The first thing they do is take your car keys and then won't give them back. They keep you in an office and continously go out to talk to their people. They have you sign all kinds of non-issue papers before they bring you the big one and there you are in debt and with a new (used) car. We needed a car, and we wanted to buy one, but we were so herded into this purchase that we felt like we had been ran over with a steam roller. We got out of there, they finally gave us back her keys after we had bought the car, after nine o'clock at night.

Now I know what dealers are capable of, but I am not healthy and do not do well in stressful situations. My daughter is very quiet and shy, and not one to cause a scene. We needed the car, and I guess the deal was okay, but we still feel like we have been taken because of the way dealers deal. This poor woman did not need a new car, she did not come in for a new car. I feel like she is probably just the victim of an aggressive salesman and they should be held responsible. Also, you have so many days to back out of the deal, and it sounds like they did that, but the dealership did not respect that right. JMHO

[Kingshakabobo]

126. You do not have three days to back out of a car purchase.......

....At least, not in Illinois you don't. Other states maybe. I used to be an F&I manager in an Illinois dealership and we had a lot of people learn that one the hard way. Think about it - cars, especially new cars, can get a lot of wear and tear on them when driven 3 (5 days including a weekend) business days. Would you want to buy a "brand new" car that someone took for a three or five day test-drive? Not to mention that it would put the rental car businesses out of business.

That said, we couldn't/didn't enforce the contract if the buyer didn't take delivery of the vehicle.

The dealer is wrong in this case if they forced her to take delivery, especially after they knew about her illness. In contract law 101 you learn that a contract with a mentally ill person is not enforceable.......especially when you where made aware of the illness.

[rebel with a cause]

132. Well, there is a period even here in Illinois were you can return the car.

may not be three days, but there is a period. there is one called the lemon law or something and I believe there may even be another one. this may be a new one. We have a warranty on this car so we are not that worried. But if I wanted to, I could make a claim against them because they knew about my health issues and still kept us there for over three hours. They even apologized for it, but they still kept us there. But I didn't purchase the car, my daughter did.

I have dealt with very shady car dealerships in the past, years ago and could not believe that I let this happen again, not that I am saying that they are shady. The ford corporation even wanted me to sue their one dealership because of their business tactics, but I jut couldn't take the stress of it. I wondered why they didn't just take action against them, because they knew what they were doing in ford's name, they were their official dealer.

[tammywammy]

136. Lemon Law is different

That applies only when you have a defective car. It doesn't mean you can just return it for no reason. Lemon law varies by state as well. For instance in Texas you must allow the dealer at least 3 times to fix the problem.

[rebel with a cause]

144. ........

I knew what the lemon law was, and was only addressing the one poster in regard to Illinois. I don't want to get into an argument about Illinois laws dealing with car dealerships, that is why I mentioned it and because I can't remember the other one that enables you to back out of a car deal within a short period of time. In other words, I was just looking for a graceful way out. If there is one. :)

[tammywammy]

150. Oh it's okay

Some people just don't know what's what, esp concerning vehicle sales.

I'm not sure of any state that automatically gives you a 3-day grace period.

[Kingshakabobo]

153. No argument here.

Ex-shady-car-dealer here. I'm happy to provide any insight from my 11 years in the business. It's important that people realize they DON'T have three days.

[rebel with a cause]

158. I didn't mean to insult you, if I did.

Not all car dealers I have dealt with were shady, just several of them have been. I went back and read my post and I never said we had three days here in Illinois. I was told the other day that you had so many hours (which I believe equaled out to a day or two, but am unsure) to back out of a car deal. There are probably other restrictions on this also but since I was not thinking about taking the car back, I didn't check into it. So far, I believe we got a good deal on the car we bought, the only problem was that they said the car had several features that it did not have. But the price was still good and the car is very low mileage for a 2005 and had an excellent car fax report. It is still under the new car warranty and we have a back up for when that warranty ends. Unless the car begins to fall apart and they don't honor the warranty, then I am okay with it.

The car I purchased from ford was less than a year old with only 4,000 miles on it. It looked good, drove good, until we had it home for a few days. Then it literally did begin to fall apart and they did not honor the warranty. I had the car for quite a while, it took me that long to pay it off, but it was dangerous to drive for most of that time because major things kept going wrong with it. The people in the maintenance department use to contact the ford company to try to get us help with it, that is how bad the management of the dealership did us. Now I had fords before and they were okay, so I am not saying this about all of them, but I would not buy another one.

I then purchased a chrysler. No problem with the dealer when I made the purchase, the car was good except all the paint came off it and they would not honor the warranty. When I went back to the same dealership to see about getting my car fixed and dealt with another salesman, he took my keys and tried to pressure me to buy another car. The problem with the deal he was offering me was he wanted me to trade my car in for an older model with less options, more miles and then add the cost of that car to what I owed on the car I had. What???? I would owe for two cars and only have one. I was not quite that stupid. I had to actually throw a fit out in their waiting room in order to get my car keys back so I could leave after being held there for over four hours, two of which I had been saying no and asking for my keys back. Until the other night, I have not dealt with another car dealer.

So unless you worked in Southern Illinois in Benton or Nashville, I have no problem with you. ;-)

[Amelie]

192. Next time you buy a car

You might want to think about going to Enterprise Car Sales. I've bought my last three cars from them, and will buy every car I ever need from them. It's *very* low pressure. They sell their fleet cars for a fixed price; the cars are in good shape, there's no negotiation, and they have great service. If you don't see what you want on their lot, they can find it for you somewhere in the country. If you don't want to pay the price you see on the window, that's fine with them. I will never buy another car from a conventional dealer again.

[Kingshakabobo]

147. The lemon law only covers defects on brand new cars that can't be ....

....taken care of in, I think 3??, trips to service on the same item.

I feel bad that people get hammered when they walk in to a dealership but dealerships live(and die) on closing deals on the first visit. Statistically, the customer is not coming back if they walk out without a vehicle - that's a fact of life dealerships live with. The salesmen would joke about "the be-back bus" - all the people that PROMISED they would be back.

I always tell friends to call ahead and ask for a sales-manager to try and work out as much as possible over the phone to avoid some of the pressure tactics.

[mopinko]

162. actually, i think you have 3 days on any sales contract in ill.

once in a while they actually tell you that. i think the last one that did that with me terminex. i can't prove it, but that is my recollection.

[tammywammy]

167. It doesn't apply to vehicle sales

[Kingshakabobo]

175. Cars are specifically excluded for practical purposes.......

Wear and tear...title issues etc.

UNLESS,,,,,they solicited YOU at your home.......OR, "tent-sales" held off regular dealership properties can negate the dealer's protections. I used to see the Illinois Attorney General complaints and the first question on the customer's complaint questionnaire was "did they solicit you" and "did the transaction take place on regular dealer property"(or words to that affect).

You certainly would have had protection on your terminex contract.

[Trekologer]

204. Taking the keys is a sleezy trick

If you ever go to a car dealer, take two sets of keys, the second with only the car key(s) on it. If the dealer asks for a set of keys when you take a test drive, give them the second set. If later they refuse to give them back or conveniently can't find them, tell them that they can send you the keys when they find them and drive away.

[ContraBass Black]

127. If the dealer agreed not to deliver the car if her condition was proven

And then delivered it anyway after receiving such proof, that is their fault, and she does have a right.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Yah... NO.

[brentblack]

6. Hmmm....

I went in for an oil change and ended up buying new tires. Lawsuit??


In other news...car salesmen tend to be sneaky douchebags (no offense intended to actual bags of douche)

[Maine-ah]

151. roflmao

btw, I know someone with your name....weird. :hi:

[no_hypocrisy]

7. In law, there is a defense of mental capacity to enter knowingly

into a contract. It excuses infancy, insanity, drunkeness, alterred awareness, etc. from the obligations of a contract since one party lacked the ability to fully appreciate the terms and conditions of the contract. In this case, the questions would be whether the car dealer was aware of bipolar condition, whether the condition was disabling to the plaintiff, and whether the dealer manipulated the plaintiff because the condition was obvious. And if the standard of bipolar should not be whether it was obvious, does that mean that this particular plaintiff cannot be able to enter into any contract as long as she has this condition or if she doesn't take her medication a particular day?

[BlooInBloo]

13. It should mean the dealer would have a cause of action viz her not taking her meds...

... and as a result costing the dealer a bunch.

[kiahzero]

Maybe in some alternate universe...

Meanwhile, in reality, she had no duty to the car dealership, and thus the dealership would not have a cause of action - if there's no duty, there can be no breach.

[Skidmore]

53. Didn't she repudiate the writing within 10 days of the contract?

It would seem to me that she was in compliance with UCC.

[no_hypocrisy]

55. You're right. Article 3 I believe.

Good catch! Bipolar would be a nonissue.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. I had no idea impulse buying was a part of bi-polar.

That said, good on the dealer.

[NMMNG]

12. Indeed it is

Impulsive behavior of many varieties is characteristic of the disorder.

[Forkboy]

15. Your sympathy and understanding of those with bipolar disorder is touching

:puke:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Your misunderstanind my post is admirable.

:thumbsup:

[Forkboy]

22. perhaps you'd be so kind as to explain the meaning of this then..

That said, good on the dealer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Referring to how...

the dealer offered to return the money if the woman gave proof of her medical condition.

[Forkboy]

25. Ok,thank you for the explanantion,and sorry I missed it.

Peace.

[rebel with a cause]

61. Don't apologize.

The dealer did not follow through. He did not give back the money, he sent the car out and left the keys in the mailbox. Sneaky SOB!

[BoneDaddy]

161. Right

anyone with any mental disorder is not accountable for anything. If you knew ANYTHING about Bi-polar, they are not dissociated from reality to the point of not knowing right or wrong. Someone with bi-polar has the ability to know when they are manic and take responsibility for it. The apologists for this mental illness keep them sick by keeping them non-accountable.

[rebel with a cause]

178. I have not only known bi-polar people

I have worked with them.

I had a whole long post here, but decided that it just wasn't worth it. If the car dealer is who you want to champion in this and blame the woman, then nothing I can say will change your mind and it is not worth me wasting my time and then feeling guilty about getting angry with people who just don't see it the way I do.

[redqueen]

49. But... they didn't, after they got the proof. They changed their mind, I guess.

So... ?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. That's up for the court to decide.

We're just getting the plantiff's side of the story.

Apparently he's upset that they delivered the car after he sent them the documents. Did he allow adequate time for the recipient of the documents to notify the delivery driver? I'd suspect there'd have to be some sort of management decision involved. Were they the proper documents to begin with?

[redqueen]

58. Fair point.

Let's hope you're right, and they're acting in good faith.

Given the way most businesses conduct themselves these days, though... can't really expect that to be the case. We shall see.

[Kingshakabobo]

131. I highly doubt there was a "delivery driver" in the conventional sense.

edit: never mind. There is an article below that makes it more clear that she DID take initial delivery of the car.

[GreenPartyVoter]

32. Yes, so is impulsive sex. :^(

[jhasp]

129. My dad did the same thing - twice

Unfortunately, he also has (had?) the money to do it. The first time he bought a little red sports car. After he came out of his manic phase (and after he wrecked it) he was able to sell it and get back most of his money. The second time he purchased a brand new Avalon, which he has kept. While he was at the dealership he called me up and tried to cajole me into buying another car with him. I am a grad student with two kids at home and did not need and could not afford a new car. He got very angry that I wouldn't go along with him for another car (in his manic state he gets extremely aggressive and has been arrested in the past for threatening people, including my wife and I). For my birthday (he was feeling better by this time), he sent me a card that said on the front "How does a new car sound for your birthday?" and when you opened it it sounded like a car engine. I don't know if he realized just how strange the card was.

[femmedem]

206. I have a friend who went bankrupt when her bipolar husband bought 5 cars

in one afternoon. :(

[sandnsea]

10. Provided the husband called immediately

The dealership should have just taken back the car. It's just the right thing to do. The fact that the dealership didn't, proves they're dishonorable in the first place. We have sunk to pathetic lows when we put business before human decency. It IS personal, it's not "just business". There's no need to make money this way.

[alarimer]

30. Most car dealerships are not known for being honorable

High pressure sales tactics and all that. They are known for preying on the vulnerable, so their tactics here do not really surprise me.

[BoneDaddy]

11. The Victim culture at it's worse

So sad how far we have fallen when this person is not even able to accept accountability for her own behavior.

I think she might have a case that she can breach the contract but as to sue for damages...give me a break.

[NMMNG]

14. While I don't agree that the dealer is in any way at fault

A person who has bipolar disorder can indeed engage in impulsive behavior that is, to one degree or another, outside their control.

[BoneDaddy]

18. I don't disagree but to

sue for damages? come on now.

[NMMNG]

23. Suing for damages is too much

She should have merely asked to be allowed to return the car IMO.

[rebel with a cause]

63. She did, they refused when they had no right to refuse to.

She actually does have a right to sue because you are allowed to back out of such a deal within a certain amount of time, and that right was not recognized/honored evidently by the dealer. This is my take on it anyway.

[alarimer]

31. Then why is she allowed to engage in any major purchases?

I don't see why the family doesn't take away her ability to buy things, especially after this.

[dddem]

60. Speaking on behalf of families of bi-polar sufferers everywhere,

May I say, with all due respect, you have absolutely no clue.
You should be thankful for that.
Peace.

[NMMNG]

149. She made an impulse purchase

People without mental illness do that all of the time, which is why there is a grace period on big-ticket items, and a return policy on most other items.

It's not as if she committed a felony. :shrug:


Also, like many illnesses bipolar disorder has active and inactive phases. It would be inappropriate and downright cruel to penalize her on an ongoing basis for symptoms displayed during an active phase. Would you permanently confine a cancer patient to his home because he vomited on you once?

[Forkboy]

16. Spoken like someone who has no clue what it's like.

[BoneDaddy]

19. I am not denying the power of bi-polar disorder

and I think the dealer needs to violate the contract, but to act as if she deserves damages and has a right to sue?

That is going to far.

[Forkboy]

21. Ok,that I agree on,as stated below.

[pop goes the weasel]

28. the dealer forced the issue

He said he would invalidate the lease if given proof of the woman's condition. He received the proof before he delivered the car, and delivered it anyway. He probably was obligated to invalidate the lease immediately anyway, as most states have laws on the books to protect people who've been steamrolled into a purchase.

I've suffered from serious depression, and can tell you that I felt completely unable to defend myself against even moderate sales pressure. Sales people will see that a person has a weakness and will exploit it mercilessly, then be angry when the person--finally away from the pressure and back with their support system--cancels the sale. I have no sympathy at all for the dealer. I would not be surprised if he has pulled this on other people, and has gone after defaulters who made purchases they couldn't afford or understand, who were not as aware of their rights as this woman's family.

[depakid]

39. This is common law that goes WAY back

It's an equitable remedy called rescission- and she also has a claim based on a 1974 Michigan Consumer Protection Statute.

That's the one that's going to cause the dealership more problems (and when you read all the facts- I bet you'll think "rightly so.")

[Kingshakabobo]

134. In Illinois, you don't have a rescission period on autos.....

.....unless you were solicited at your home. No three day right to cancel. I was a finance manager in a dealership and I got to be the bearer of bad news on that one. I would venture to guess Michigan has similar laws as it is a pro-manufacturer/dealer state. I could be wrong.

[tammywammy]

140. Texas is the same

[depakid]

159. deleted by depa

[sandnsea]

47. The Predator culture at its worse

Where people can take advantage of the mentally ill and the majority actually support the predator.

Our civil justice system uses money to punish those who break laws to make money. Again, you blame the victim for using the law that was set up to prevent predatory business practices.

When is this country going to put human beings above the almighty dollar.

[redqueen]

50. Thank you!

:applause:

[BoneDaddy]

163. Give me a break

and people with bi-polar are not accountable at all for their decisions. YOu know nothing about bi-polar then. The mental health community is all about people with mental illness taking accountablility for their issues ...it is not an excuse

[sandnsea]

181. Cheating people obsessively is sick too

If we were a sane country, they'd be the ones in the hospitals and the vulnerable people would be safe from being picked apart. I guess I'm on the side of making the destroyers accountable first.

Being accountable for your life also means not letting people cheat you just because you're sick.

[BoneDaddy]

211. My point is that exactly

this is life. It is imperfect and there are predators out there, but they are never going to go away. That is why we are all primarily accountable for our situation...both the bi-polar person and the sleazy car salesman. I tire of the mantra or "I have a disability so I am not accountable for what I do". To continue to think that way is to victimize yourself and if you do that to a person who has an illness you continue to do it to them and ultimately keep them in a position of powerlessness and victimhood. Watch Murderball and tell me what you think of keeping people in their wounds and whether it is good for them?

Obviously this has been a problem before, so don't you think they should have had a plan? When you are bi-polar, you are not in a fugue state, you know what you are doing, and are no where near as decompensated as you would be if you were having a psychotic break. She should not have access to credit cards, should be medicated and under the close supervision of her doctor. When she senses a manic episode coming on, it is time to contact her husband immediately or anyone else who can help.

I have never argued that the salesman wasn't accountable. I was arguing over the level of accountability that this person should have had under the circumstances.

I am looking for a balance.

[sandnsea]

218. Balance for predators?

If somebody had raped this woman because her mental illness had put her in a precarious location that she wouldn't otherwise had been in - would you think the same? No. Nobody has the right to rape someone, regardless of what the victim does.

Nobody has the right to cheat people into signing documents, it's actually against the law. Let that sink in. A contract is void if both partners to it have not entered into it with their full faculties, etc. No "balance" to it. You cannot cheat people into paying you money.

Now I know the business community has spent billions of dollars convincing you otherwise. The truth is, there are legal limits to business transactions and there should be. We don't take advantage of the mentally handicapped, whether it be pscyhological or intellectual. It's immoral. It's illegal.

[BoneDaddy]

220. Ah extreme victimization

so I have no argument...pathetic. I do not support the predatory nature of some businesses yet you need to see this woman as a complete and utter victim. Stop projecting please. I ask for a middle ground that holds BOTH accountable.

I so tire of this message board with it's professional victims who push their helplessness on every one else and never really take any accountability for their own lives...There is always a boogie man out there who "steals" it from them. My guess is if you do an inventory of your own history you would find a interesting pattern of behavior that always seems to hold the "other" accountable for your own inadequacies, failures or ability to reach any sense of power. What a shame.

My guess is you are a rape victim (or something close to it) and you need to see everyone else as powerless as you feel. If that is the case you have my support and compassion but get some help and get through it somehow, but stop projecting that upon every incident where you can feel justified in doing so.

[sandnsea]

224. Welcome to ignore n/t

[BoneDaddy]

229. Sometimes

the truth hurts. Sorry.

[Forkboy]

20. She shouldn't sue for money but she should get out of the contract

The dealer may have had no idea of her condition so I can't really fault them.But I do know exactly what it's like when your brain says do something and you can't control or even understand you're doing it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

33. Exactly, She should not sue but if she can get out of the contract she needs to try.

[depakid]

36. If you don't sue for the extra money, the car dealer has no incentive to settle

- and in most cases, they won't. That's the nature of that business.

Moreover, check this out- they haven't exactly been dealing in good faith (Surprise, surprise).

During the visit, Berner was invited by salesman and sales manager John Hackett to first test drive and subsequently lease a Mazda CX9, according to Berner's attorney, Dani K. Liblang.

<snip>

The next day, Berner -- a single mother who is separated from her husband and cannot afford the additional $444 a month lease -- realized her error and discussed it with her husband. He took the vehicle back to the dealership, Liblang said.

"He discussed her mental condition with them and was told 'no problem,' to just provide a letter from her doctor and the deal would be rescinded," Liblang said.

Within a week, a letter was provided to the dealership, but instead the business "redelivered" the CX9 to Berner's driveway on a flatbed truck and tossed the keys into her mailbox, the attorney said.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070313/METRO02/703130353/1009

Personally, I wish she could claim more than the $25,000 in damages. Perhaps if they keep playing games, she can amend her complaint...;-)

[GreenPartyVoter]

37. Ohh.. hadn't looked at it that way. Thanks!

[gravity]

155. Props

Wow, you are the only poster who knows what the hell they are talking about

Thanks :toast:

[sandnsea]

48. That's the business punishment to prevent future crimes

Being sued for money is the trade-off so business owners don't go to jail for their predatory practices, the way a guy grabbing a candy bar goes to jail if he gets caught.

[sendero]

121. By not honoring..

... his own agreement, the dealer has FORCED the lawsuit. I have not one ounce of sympathy for the dealer.

I used to be in the car business and I've been bipolar (at a much lower level than this person) for 20+ years. :)

[MiniMe]

26. The husband should have gotten it in writing that they would take the car back.

I'm not sure if the buyer's remorse period applies to leased vehicles.

[tammywammy]

95. Buyer's remorse rarely applies to vehicles

In almost all states, once you sign a contract and drive off, it's yours.

In California, you can buy a warranty of sorts that allows you to return the vehicle within 30 days, plus the cost of restocking. But the CA law just started last June (I believe, maybe May maybe July).

There are rare chances where it can apply, like during a "tent" sale, but it's really rare.

[MiniMe]

133. Actually, you do have a period to change your mind in Maryland

Not sure how long it is, but I know its law. You have it with a mortgage too. But like I said, I'm not sure about a lease. But if the manager told the husband that they would void the contract with a doctor's note, he still should have gotten it in writing.

[tammywammy]

146. Nope, no three day return in Maryland either

http://www.oag.state.md.us/consumer/edge85.htm

"First, understand that there is no three-day "cooling-off" period for car sales during which you can change your mind and cancel the contract. Once you have signed a binding contract, you are bound. Understanding that, you should never sign a contract until you are absolutely certain that you want to be bound by its terms."

Regardless, I do agree the husband should have gotten the dealership to put it in writing that they'd allow the return. And the dealership should have taken it back.

[Kingshakabobo]

152. You only have it on a "refinance" mortgage loan.....not a purchase.

You have a "three day right of rescission" on a refinance of your "primary residence" - not an investment or vacation home.

Not on a car either.

[mtnester]

27. My sister sometimes takes her meds, sometimes not, sometimes has a beer or two with them

however, my sister's particular version of bi-polar is that is is ALWAYS someone else's fault....if she was shown a video tape of her doing it, she would say "that is NOT me...just someone who looks like me and is trying to frame me..." (yeah, she is paranoid at times too)

Many times, after all these decades, when my sister is taking her meds responsibly and regularly, she still uses it as a fall back whenever things do not go her way...Someone like myself and our family, who know her better than anyone, can tell when it is the illness, and when it is simply her assholery/unwillingness to take responsibility mode....a personality disorder rather than a mental disorder....as my sister proves, you can be an asshole and have a mental illness...one is not exclusive to the other.

NOT that this is what happened to this woman...but damn it sounds familiar to me. I have heard it, or a story just like it, from my own family member, a thousand times.

Everyone will have to excuse me today...my sister is NOT taking her meds responsibly at this time and we are quite simply exhausted our own selves.

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. Sorry to hear she's off her meds. That's got to be hard on you and it

will be really hard on her when she crashes and is ready to get back on them. :hug:

[mtnester]

38. Decades of this...we know the highs and the lows

thank you :)

[GreenPartyVoter]

44. Decades? Oy! No fun at all. :^( I am praying my kids don't

turn out to have this too. So far so good, but they are still pretty little. I'll be keeping an eye out during the teen years since that seems to be when it shows up in my family.

[mtnester]

119. You are correct - my sister went over at around 20

and quite frankly, it has been a nightmare off and on for us....the 2:00 am phone calls every night, the screaming, you simply cannot have a normal 5 minute conversation with her... it will claim her one day and we will be left to raise her child, which she had against all our begging and pleading, at age 39. He is 6 now and she needs constant "break" from him so we have him a lot to begin with (can you tell she is also easily bored with things? Sort of but she has to her have her weekends, all of them to act out on her destructive behavior like drinking and sleeping with anything that can walk...or not)...

Do I expect my sister to make it until her son is 18? No. And of course she only picks winners that she is able to enable, and then blame for life when it is over, so our nephew's father is a real winner as well.

Sigh.

[GreenPartyVoter]

128. Oh man. That poor kid. He is lucky to have you as a source of stability

[mtnester]

141. He is doing OK...he was only as big as my hand when he was born

but a pistol is what he is now...he is fun to be around. He was over last Friday night for a few hours, and wore us out!

[sandnsea]

56. It's actually more complicated

She has learned a host of unhealthy behaviors to explain/rationalize her inability to function when it IS her mental illness because the mental illness can screw things up at any given point in time and it's embarrassing to say it IS the mental illness so she's made up these other excuses to cover it up and now she can't separate which is which and yes it is just this confusing for her.

[mtnester]

120. Yes to some degree, but she also acts out the role of youngest

to an unbelievabe degree...her sense of entitlement, even at a young age, was pretty high.

I can honestly say, although I love my sister, I simply do not LIKE her very much at all.

[sandnsea]

135. Well, as a youngest sister

I can say she probably doesn't like you either.

Bye now.

[mtnester]

137. Yep

just like that

[sandnsea]

142. So

it's okay for you to pass every kind of judgment and condescension on her, say any nasty thing you want - but when you're confronted on your shitty attitude, it's still somebody else's immaturity that's at fault - it's just like that with you, is that it?

[mtnester]

148. So, did you even read that I said I love her?

Of course not, you cherry picked something to self apply and find offensive. When she would rather drink than take her meds or take care of her child, I am supposed to LIKE that?

SO, when you find the passing of judgment when all we have done is stood by her, good AND bad times...let me know...explaining how difficult it is to deal with a family member with BPD is not a prettified story.

Now, you know where you can go don't you?

[sandnsea]

173. So she's a bipolar addict

You aren't alone in having to deal with bipolar addicts. Almost every family has them. Mine included. A couple of them. But you went beyond that and attacked her character too. YOU brought YOUR sibling issues into the thread, not hers, not mine. YOURS. But you don't see that because self-righteous big sisters never do.

[mtnester]

214. So we BOTH live up to the stereotypical roles

oldest sister - martyr
Youngest - blameless

click - done

[BoneDaddy]

222. Christ

do you have any power in real life as a person or are do you always get your power as being a victim or "helpless". Get some help please.

[BoneDaddy]

221. Thank you for some real reality

instead of the "I have a mental illness I am not responsible for ANYTHING" bullshit that passes for compassion on these boards.

REal compassion is not accepting excuses from adults who use their illness to gain power with family and the world and never accept full responsibility for their actions.

Real compassion is confronting them lovingly and supportively that you will no longer accept their behavior as a result of their "illness". It is called enabling and is very much a part of the family dynamic in addiction and mental illness.

The "martyrs" on these boards do more damage to the patient than they can do to themselves. Sad.

[Madspirit]

34. Serious Disorder

I have bipolar disorder. It's quite serious and technically a psychosis. I still don't understand why this is supposed to be the car dealer's problem..<g> If she was schizophrenic and was obviously "out there" I would probably question the integrity of the car dealer in taking her money but bipolars, except when WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY manic, appear normal.

Lee

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. I have BP2 so at most I look a little wacky.. kinda like maybe I am a bit

tipsy.. when I am euphoric manic.

[Madspirit]

98. I look kind of wacked too when the "High" hits n/t

[BoneDaddy]

223. Mad spirit you are a breath of fresh air

and you will most likely reach a great level of healing. Your self awareness is wonderful and I honor your personal power. Well done.

[shadowknows69]

41. Think this would work for old college loans?

I was clinically depressed when I signed up for college and clearly not in my right mind. I don't even remember most of it so why should i have to pay?

[Madspirit]

42. Clinical Depression is not a psychosis

...BUT severe clinical depression can have psychotic breaks. You can try...<g>
Lee

[shadowknows69]

43. If you knew me

you'd see the occasional psychosis. Clinical depression is as much of a diagnosis as I could afford.

[Madspirit]

45. Clinical depression is as much of a diagnosis as I could afford.

:rofl: Cynical yet astute. You are depressed.

I was diagnosed with bipolar, PTSD and clinical depression LONG before they were the chic Illness du Jour. ...and I'm really really poor.
Lee

[shadowknows69]

46. I was diagnosed in the early 90's

So I got to join the Prozac nation. Gave it up. Stopped my depression, and my happiness, passion, sex drive. I'd rather be suicidal than not horny.

[sandnsea]

52. Depends on when you signed up

If you got your student loans before all the new laws that make you watch videos, etc., then it's possible you could use your mental illness to get out of your loans. Depending on the circumstances, it might even be justified. Example, some truck driving school that lets someone on medication take their course, when they know nobody would ever hire them.

[flashlighter]

164. Not really

The only way to get a federal loan discharged is to death/permanent disabilty so dehabilitating that you cannot do ANYTHING. So, for example if you went to med school and racked up $200k in loans, and then got hit by a truck you became unable to be a doctor, but you could be a janitor, your med loans still need to be paid. The DOE gets its money back!

[sandnsea]

179. That's now

It didn't used to be that way. That's why I told the poster it depends on when he got his student loans. They didn't used to require all those educational videos, etc., and people were shocked by the amount of their monthly payments after they finished school. Some student loans were discharged as a result. They added the educational requirements, and added discharge restrictions at the same time.

[BuyingThyme]

51. Why is such a woman permitted to drive a motor vehicle?

[depakid]

59. Maybe because she's driven safely?

and generally obeys the traffic laws?

[BuyingThyme]

62. If she's incapable of being responsible for

her own actions, even to an absurdly minimal standard, she should never be allowed on the road.

[depakid]

64. Well that's a silly argument- I could use use the same type of one on you. Easily.

Because you seem to lack understanding- or an appreciation of nuances- and tend to generalize (i.e., Manichean thinking), you shouldn't be allowed in certain professions (particularly when the human condition(s) are involved). In fact- because of your lack of ability to see nuances, you shouldn't ever be allowed to make certain sorts of decisions- or take part in certain actions..

Voting comes to mind (evil, eh?)- though there are many, many others.

[BuyingThyme]

89. There's no nuance here. The woman doesn't want to be responsible

for anything she does, so she certainly should not be driving.

But your voting rights example seems to say a lot about you.

[treestar]

124. She wants to be responsible

She has an illness.

Having seen people with this illness, I can assure you she would rather not have the illness.

[BuyingThyme]

125. You're equivocating.

[ecstatic]

65. good point. nt

[rebel with a cause]

68. Perhaps you should study up on how some mental illnesses affect you

before you make these comments. Just a thought.

[BuyingThyme]

94. All people are different. You should study up.

[rebel with a cause]

110. Actually I have.

that is why I felt like I could make that comment to you.

[kiahzero]

73. There's a difference between contracting and driving.

Just because your judgment is impaired such that you are incapable of intending to make a binding promise doesn't mean that you are unfit to drive.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

79. Interesting question, though.

If bi-polar disorder can lead to impulsive driving, and impulsive sex(?), are their other impulsive actions, such as impulsive, i.e. wreckless, driving? Say an impulsive U-turn?

Is there a correlation of wreckless driving among BPD sufferers?

[kiahzero]

83. That is a good point

However, those questions should be addressed on a factual level, rather than a reflexive desire to punish a woman for seeking a remedy for an alleged wrong.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

84. Agreed

And that's the level I'm trying to address the question at.

The people saying "buyer beware" are full of shit.

[BuyingThyme]

93. Actually, it does.

[kiahzero]

114. Minors can't drive anymore?

Wow... I would have figured a bunch of 16-year-olds (unable to contract, generally able to drive) suddenly getting their licenses yanked would have raised at least a little outcry.

[BuyingThyme]

118. If a sixteen-year-old says s/he is not responsible for his/her actions,

s/he should not drive. See how simple it is?

[kiahzero]

188. It's not simple at all.

Minors can disaffirm their contracts, and they can drive. Clearly the legal system disagrees with you.

Your problem is that you are conflating "unable to contract" with "unable to be responsible for oneself."

[Madspirit]

72. Exactly!

If she can pass the tests to drive she should be able to drive. Don't discriminate on the basis of any illness.
Lee

[Madspirit]

69. Even Schizophrenics can drive

In Texas even schizophrenics can drive. I have friends who are schizophrenic and who drive. I even called the DPS and asked because I was kind of surprised.

Lee

[mentalsolstice]

170. Yeah, well...

16 year olds are allowed to drive, but in most states they're still considered minors when it comes to making major decisions...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

66. On One Hand, I Think Tough Shit On Her; That's Her Problem Not The Dealership's.

On the other hand, if the dealership in fact agreed the next day to rescind the contract then I don't mind them legally being bound to have done so. I do not, however, think for a second that the dealership was obligated in any way shape or form to take the vehicle back if they hadn't agreed to do so. The fact that she is bi-polar is completely irrelevant in my opinion. It is not the dealership's responsibility to babysit her or her impulses. It just isn't. Had there been no verbal agreement to take it back, I'd be 100% in the camp of 'tough shit lady; deal with it'. But since preliminarily speaking (until it comes out as fact) the dealership had a verbal agreement, then they should not have re-delivered it.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Madspirit]

70. So I'm NOT the only one...n/t

[depakid]

71. I reckon not....

:hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

74. Are You Capable Of More Than Mindless Empty Attack Or No? My Post Isn't Shallow At All.

It's logically sound.

Now what you need to do is learn to have a civil discussion on context rather than throwing out childish personal attack anytime someone is in disagreement with your position.

I have a right to express my opinion in a civil way on this topic. You DO NOT have a right to attack me personally for it.

[kiahzero]

76. Actually...

People do have a right to attack you personally for your beliefs. We do it all the time here... the sheer amount of invective directed towards people deemed too conservative (whether members of the site or otherwise) is rather breathtaking. People attack and are attacked personally for their beliefs all the time. If I believed that killing puppies was a fun and enjoyable pasttime, I don't think that expressing that opinion in a civil way would (or should) protect me from personal attacks.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. Actually, You Are Quite Mistaken.

Regardless of the topic there is no right whatsoever to take it to a personal level via attack. The alert button and mods are there for that reason. But no matter how distasteful a post is there is still NO justification for personal attack and no right to it; PERIOD.

Furthermore, I hope you're not actually asserting I'm too conservative. I'm a full blooded Democrat. My positions are that of the Democratic party on 99% of everything.

[kiahzero]

88. I wasn't saying anything about you personally.

I was merely pointing out that most people would argue that it's OK to point out the distasteful quality of a person's beliefs. I would, in fact, argue that it's necessary.

[depakid]

78. I have every right to point out your shallowness

And one might hope that you might have a look around and consider what's been said.

[Madspirit]

82. Check your PM...n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

86. You Didn't Point Anything Out. In Fact, You Have Yet To Address Any Context At All.

You offered mere empty attack with no refutation nor intellectual argument.

In order to point something out, you have to at least, ya know, actually have referenced something.

Fact is, you set out to do nothing more than attack me and cause trouble. If you want to discuss what it is about my post that you disagree with in a civil and mature manner, then go for it. But if you are just going to throw out empty personal attack without any intellectual substance, then you are just wasting everybody's time.

[depakid]

154. Shallow rhetoric

What is it that you might share?

Knowledge of law? Science? Econ? History? Experience?

Then please, go ahead.

If you think I cause you trouble- maybe it's because I reckon (along with others) that you're a shallow person with nothing to offer.

If you don't believe that- then, prove us wrong.

Simple enough.

[kiahzero]

75. Actually, it might be the dealer's responsibility

If they knew she was in a state that she lacked the capacity to bind herself to a promise, the contract would be invalid.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. Ummmm, Yeah And They Would've Known That HOW Now?

There are all types of eccentric personalities out there. It isn't up to the dealership to interview them and ask them their mental history or current mental competence. Should she be wearing a badge that warns people of her condition? I doubt you'd condone that.

If she is that reckless and irresponsible that she cannot control her actions or impulses in public, then she should either be confined to a mental health facility; forced to be in public with some sort of escort (her husband?) at all times; or just quite simply responsible for her own actions. It has to be one of the three. It is not up to strangers to take care of her for her.

[kiahzero]

80. Inability to contract is not a danger to others

We don't institutionalize minors for the first eighteen years of their lives, out of fear for what their lack of capacity to contract might do to destroy the social fabric.

Like I said - if they had constructive knowledge of her incapacity, then the first contract wasn't binding. However, that really is a moot question, because they made a subsequent agreement to rescind the first.

[The Straight Story]

87. True as that may be - we also restrict minors based on that

Their inability to do certain things means we can't sell em alcohol, smokes, cars, etc.

[kiahzero]

90. Actually, you can sell them cars.

The restrictions on alcohol and cigarettes have little or no relationship to a minor's incapacity to contract.

As for cars, the reason you don't see dealerships selling *only* to minors is because a minor may disaffirm their contracts, and dealerships don't want to take that risk.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. Exactly. "You Can Sell Them Cars". Damn Right You Can.

That would fall under point number three. If she can't accept that responsibility, then she needs to support either 1 or 2.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. 1 or 2, eh?

She either needs to be locked up, or be escorted by her husband?

Sounds like a cross between Dickens and the Taliban.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

100. Nope.

It would be more appropriate for her to take responsibility for her actions. But if she isn't capable of doing such, then she should either require an escort in public, shouldn't go out in public, or as a last alternative should be institutionalized if her disability is that significant (which I don't believe it is).

All I know is that when someone is in the public domain there needs to be someone responsible for their behavior. Under the majority of cases for adults that is the person themselves. If that person is incapable, then ABSOLUTELY there needs to be another caretaker present who is responsible. But one thing is for certain: When someone enters the public domain of society someone has to be directly responsible for that person's actions. That's simple logic.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

103. Riiiight.

Because bi-polar women who get improperly talked into buying a car are such an immediate, and direct threat to society.

While we're locking people up and throwing away the key, let's go after elderly women who send their social security checks to televangelists. I can't sleep safely at night knowing that they're on the loose.

[kiahzero]

107. Blaming the victim is common in predatory contracts and other scams

For some reason beyond me, "they should have known better" is more acceptable when someone is a victim of an economic harm rather than a personal harm.

[marions ghost]

190. Absolutely True

"Blaming the victim is common in predatory contracts..."

MANY (intelligent, functioning) people are duped into entering into contracts in which they are victimized or ripped off in some way everyday. There is far too little protection of the consumer in our society. Car dealers should not be singled out in this. There are unscrupulous businesses operating in every community and they get away with this because they can. I'm a supporter of those TV shows that expose these specific predators in communities since the legal system offers very little protection.

And yet, people (especially the "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps mindset") still think it's all about 'buyer beware.' Fine until you are on the receiving end. Some of these dubious businesses are very clever at flying just under the radar, knowing that in this society white collar crime more readily tolerated than physical violence. But it can be as destructive as any physical violence.

The average person cannot know everything there is to know about (for example) buying cars, loans, real estate, construction, and other services too numerous to mention. The young are particularly vulnerable. People are cheated every day of the week, and the average consumer still thinks it's all about "they should have known better"--until one day, it happens to them.

We consumers need to support each other, and fight against exploitative practices.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. You're Twisting Things Now.

I never called her an immediate or direct threat to society. I'm saying she needs to take responsibility for her impulses or she needs to be represented in public by someone who can.

I found nothing in the article or otherwise that gives any credence to your assertion that they improperly talked her into buying a car. I found nothing anywhere that gives any reason to believe they misrepresented anything or engaged in fraud. I saw them do nothing else but sell her a car that she turned out to have buyers remorse from. And it's not like this was an instantaneous thing either. She even took it for a test drive and everything. Now if she is that oblivious to the consequences of her actions or that incapable of controlling her impulses that lead to such actions, then she either needs to have someone representing her on her behalf in public or she just simply shouldn't be in public at all. I find that to be quite common sense logic to be honest with ya.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. No, you didn't say she was an immediate threat to society.

You just said she should be locked up, or escorted.

Shit, dude, they don't even have sex offenders do that.

What, you want a big scarlet BPD on their smocks?

Hey, here's a crazy idea- how about car dealers just not sell cars to mentally retarded, ill, or otherwise impaired customers, and if they do but didn't know about it, they give the person a refund?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

122. Wrong Again.

I said first and foremost she should be responsible for her own behavior. Only if she is incapable do the other two options apply. I am not advocating for the latter; I'm advocating for the former.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

165. Ah, yes.

You advocated she should be responsible for her own behaviour.

:crazy:

Why don't those mentally ill people just stop acting mentally ill? Why won't they be more considerate?

:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

171. I Don't See The Point In Your Continued Replies If You're Going To Repeatedly Refuse To

actually offer anything towards discussion.

The whole point is that she either needs to be responsible for her actions or grant somebody else authority to be responsible for her actions. You cannot just have people running around in public who feel they are not responsible for their actions at all and are not under the care of someone who is. You seem to want to keep avoiding the logic and instead replying with nothing more than attacking sarcasm. Doing the latter is nothing short of worthless towards discussion. If you want to argue my points and their merits, than do so. But I haven't seen you logically defend a thing yet or offer any refutation to my concept.

[kiahzero]

191. Yet you refuse to consider other examples of people in similar conditions.

Minors, who are unable to contract, do not have to be locked up or escorted everywhere.

I can't help but think you aren't actually interested in the civil discussion you so adamantly claimed you were trying to have - if you were, you would actually be reading and responding to the posts of others.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

196. You've Got To Be Kidding.

These are not similar conditions by any stretch of the imagination. She is not a minor, she is an adult. How you can compare the two as being similar is a huge leap from reality. The biggest flaw in your argument is that there is a HUGE difference between not being mature enough to understand the full consequences of an action and simply not caring about consequences due to impulse. She understands the consequences of her actions, she just simply acted out of impulse and therefore didn't pay mind to the consequences. There is NOTHING in any of the articles that could lead one to believe she was in a deluded state of mind that would cause her to not be aware the she was signing a contract.

Furthermore, I'm not advocating for her to be locked away. My point is that SHE is responsible for her actions; not the dealership. If she wants to claim that she is INCAPABLE of being responsible for her actions then she either needs to have a someone who IS legally responsible for her actions or she should not be allowed in public. It is mandatory that adults in public are represented by someone who bears responsibility for their actions. Under the majority of cases that person is oneself. In cases where that is impossible, then there needs to be someone else with them who is. Absent of that, the person shouldn't be allowed in public. This is simple and straightforward logical argument. If you want to dispute it then dispute it. But don't tell me I'm the one unwilling to engage in civil debate or that I'm not reading the other points. I've responded to EVERY point made thoroughly and logically. It is others who are twisting my words and sentiments; as usual, to make it appear as if I'm evil and having such bad intent, while not refuting my points at all. Personally, these twisting tactics by some are getting really old.

I have stated precisely why I hold the position I do and have done so repeatedly. I have been civil throughout. If you want to refute my logic then go ahead. But I'd ask that you don't imply false negatives upon me while doing so.

[kiahzero]

199. You're once again conflating different things

It's clear you don't actually care about civil discussion, because you're not actually willing to listen to the people you're "discussing" with. :shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

201. Now You're Just Being Silly.

I have discussed things in a civil manner and have refuted every one of your points. I have listened to each and been thorough in my refutation.

I couldn't help now but notice your complete lack of refutation however, and how you are trying to deflect away from the debate by personally attacking me instead of engaging in intellectual discussion.

I care about civil discussion perfectly fine. But based on your repeated accusation while ignoring altogether my well written reply, does lend evidence to support that maybe it is you who doesn't actually care about civil discussion.

If you are not going to refute my points and avoid personal attack then this discussion is over.

[Madspirit]

101. Sounds like a cross between Dickens and the Taliban.

:rofl: You're funny on this thread...and quite Right On.
Lee

[kiahzero]

99. You entirely missed the point.

You can sell a minor a car if you really want to, but if there's no one else entering into the contract with them, they can change their mind at any point and disaffirm the contract.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

97. We're Not Talking About An Inability To Contract. We're Talking About An Inability To Take

responsibility for ones actions and impulses. Nowhere in the article did it say she has a disorder that limits itself to having impulse problems with contracts. It was a general disorder.

Now to be clear, I'm also not saying she should be institutionalized. I'm saying that if she refuses to take responsibility for her actions in public or claims it's not her fault that she can't control her actions, then she should have to have someone who is responsible for those actions with her representing her interests. Only other option is to either not go out in public at all or be institutionalized. It is not shallow to say so. It is merely logically factual. Just as someone with severe social or mental disabilities is generally under the care of another since they cannot be expected to take responsibility for themselves, so too should anyone who is mentally ill to the point of not being able to take responsibility for themselves. Now I'm not saying that's the case here. That's a call for her and her husband to make. What I do know is that outside of the verbal agreement, the dealership is not in any way shape or form responsible for her actions. I know you can throw out the statement of "if they had knowledge of her disability etc", but unless she was wearing a badge identifying her as such then I'm hard pressed to imagine a realistic scenario under which they would've been aware at the time that she had some sort of severe disability that rendered her incapable of entering a contract.

[kiahzero]

102. Are you trying to miss the point?

It seems that way.

If you lack the capacity to make a contract, it doesn't necessarily follow that you lack the ability to function in society.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

106. I Find That It Is You Missing The Point.

She is arguing that because of her disorder she cannot be held responsible for certain decisions she makes out of impulse. In this case it was entering a contract for a car. What would it be next time? Who knows?

Now I'm not actually saying she's a danger. What I AM saying is that either she is responsible for her actions and decisions in public or she isn't. If she isn't, then somebody else needs to be. If she has no one else that can be, then she shouldn't go out in public. Anyone out in the public domain needs someone to be responsible for their actions. That is simple common sense social law. Usually it is the individual carrying the responsibility. When that is not the case then it needs to be someone else acting on their behalf.

[kiahzero]

111. She's arguing that she didn't have the capacity to make a contract at that time.

You're insisting that must mean she is making the broader argument that she "cannot be held responsible for decisions she makes out of impulse." However, the first doesn't entail the second.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

123. It Absolutely Does. I Urge You To Show Me How It Doesn't.

[kiahzero]

189. Contracting is a unique subset of decisions.

Just because one is deemed to not have the capacity to make binding promises does not entail that they are completely unable to function in society.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

197. No One Said Otherwise.

I never said she is completely unable to function in society. In fact, you're just making that part up.

But what she is saying is that she can't control her impulses and therefore cannot be held responsible. If she is making that claim in this case, she can also make that claim any time her disorder cause her to act impulsively. That IS what that means.

Furthermore, due to the complexities involved in signing a contract to begin with, that actually hurts her argument more than helps it, since there are multiple opportunities throughout the process to have recognized the impulsive action and backed away from it. Because it is complex it is harder to execute based on impulse alone, as compared to an impulse done instantaneously that there is only one moment to have stopped oneself, but that moment was missed (such as impulsively hitting somebody who angered you, etc).

[kiahzero]

200. No, she's saying that she lacked the capacity to make a binding promise.

You're the one that's saying that she can't control her impulses and therefore cannot be held responsible. The first doesn't imply the second. I'm sorry that you can't understand such a simple concept, but there it is.

It's fruitless to argue with someone who's not listening, so I'm putting you on ignore for a little while.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

202. No, She Actually Didn't Say That Anywhere. And Despite Your Accusations, I've Listened Fine.

The fact I haven't agreed with you doesn't mean I'm not listening. It means I consider you to be completely wrong and misguided in this context.

So put me on ignore all you like. But I consider that to be the weakest action you could've taken here since I have done nothing but discuss this civilly and used strong logic in making my points. I find it to be quite sad that you feel the need to put me on ignore simply because I'm defending my points better than you are, but I guess that's your right.

Goodbye and good riddance. :hi:

[depakid]

81. Proof postive

There it is: in the posters own words.

[Madspirit]

91. depakid...check your PM n/t

[depakid]

104. Done

and understood.

[Kingshakabobo]

156. I'm pretty sure the law disagrees with you .

I don't THINK the mental capacity or lack-there-of needs to be obvious to the dealership.

I think this is "one of those things" when the dealership just has to eat it. It's the cost of doing business.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

160. Oh Please. You've Got To Be Kidding.

No, sorry, but there is no such law. If there was, people could constantly buy things and then claim not being of sound mind when doing so. It would be so taken advantage of it's not even funny. Now I'm sure there are laws against deceitful practices or if they willfully took advantage of a person with a handicap, but I don't see any reason here to believe that. I'd love to see the law that states something along the lines of the woman not being responsible even though the dealership had no idea about the issues, and that it's their responsibility to have to deal with it. I'd LOVE to see such a law. Good luck finding evidence to substantiate your claim.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

168. How would it be taken advantage of?

You think doctors are writing out fake documentation on mental illness? Just to trick auto dealerships into giving refunds?

Are YOU currently suffering from any mental impairment?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

169. Do You Just Say Things To Say Them? The Post Was In Reference To There Being A Law.

There isn't a law. I was talking about hypothetical abuse in different ways if such a law were ever to exist. Such a law is not going to exist. But please spare us your twisting of points to make it seem like as if I was stating something about what exists right now or in the past. And if you are going to have a discussion in which we share different views, please do so in a mature manner that is conducive to civil discussion and does not include personal attack; such as insinuation that I'm suffering from mental impairment. Thanks. :hi:

[Kingshakabobo]

172. .

It's common law handled differently throughout the states. I bolded the part her attorney's are probably aiming for. If she can PROVE there was no capacity, she gets out. She doesn't have to prove the dealer knew. It's pretty simple - no capacity means no contract - proving it is another matter. Car dealers have the deck STACKED against them in court. They'll lose this case.

Speaking as an ex car dealer F&I manager, the dealership would have been better off not acknowledging, by RETURNING THE CAR, that they were in possession of the car. They should have claimed ignorance and not admitted the car was on the lot. Driving back to her house PROVES they knew there was a dispute prior to "re-delivery." What the actual dispute was will probably end up in a he-said-she-said. We would have parked it on the back lot(or left it in customer parking) and tossed the keys in the garbage.



http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:vpAfvV-uD6AJ:profj.us/outlines/LOS13.doc+contractual+capacity&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us





INCOMPETENCE



n Contracts made by mentally incompetent parties may be void, voidable, or valid, depending on the circumstances.


n Void Contract: A party who has been adjudged mentally incompetent by a court of law prior to entering into a contract and who has a court-appointed guardian, cannot enter into a legally binding contract – only the guardian may enter into binding contracts on behalf of the incompetent party.


n Voidable Contract: A party who has not been adjudged mentally incompetent by a court of law may, nonetheless, avoid a contract if, at the time of contracting, he (1) did not know he was entering into a contract and/or (2) lacked the mental capacity to understand its nature, purpose, and consequences.


n Only the incompetent party has the option of disaffirming his contractual obligations; any competent party to the contract remains bound unless released by the minor’s disaffirmance.


n Valid Contract: An otherwise incompetent party who understood the nature, purpose, and consequences of entering into the contract is bound by it.





RATIFICATION



n Ratification: Accepting and giving legal force to an obligation that previously was (1) not enforceable and/or (2) voidable. Ratification may be either express or implied.


n Express Ratification: A person lacking contractual capacity at the time they formed a contract may, upon (re-)gaining the necessary capacity to do so, expressly ratify the contract by stating, orally or in writing, that they intend to be bound by the contract.


n Implied Ratification: Likewise, a person lacking contractual capacity at the time they formed a contract may, upon (re-)gaining the necessary capacity to do so, impliedly ratify the contract


(1) by acting in a manner that is clearly inconsistent with disaffirmance or avoidance or,


(2) in the case of a minor, by failing to disaffirm within a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

176. Nice Try, But That Part Isn't Even Close To Applying Here.

She was not in any mental state that would've kept her from being aware that a contract was being signed. She was also not in any mental state that would've kept her from understanding that signing the contract meant she would own the vehicle and have to make payments on it. Trying to paint it as such would be an immensely warped interpretation of what happened here. She wasn't delusional; she was impulsive. There's a huge difference there.

For those points you bolded to apply she would had to have been in a state of mind that made it so that she had no idea a contract was even being signed and even more unaware that the signing of such meant she was purchasing something she needed to pay for. What truly happened doesn't even come close to falling under that definition.

But in all sincerity, I do appreciate your effort in trying to find such law and know you mean well. But there is no part of that law that applies here...

...Actually, I take that back. There is one part of that law that applies here. It's the part that proves my case. This time I'll do the bolding:

n Valid Contract: An otherwise incompetent party who understood the nature, purpose, and consequences of entering into the contract is bound by it.

[Kingshakabobo]

177. I don't really care to argue whether she was or wasn't competent....

......because I probably agree more with you. That doesn't mean I don't think she'll win because I think she WILL win. The car dealer is almost always wrong. That's from 11 years experience.

My point is...IF she is judged incompetent or to have lacked capacity, YES the dealership has to unwind the deal.

Anyway, can we at least admit you were wrong when you said this:

"""No, sorry, but there is no such law. If there was, people could constantly buy things and then claim not being of sound mind when doing so. It would be so taken advantage of it's not even funny."""""

Yes, people CAN make a contract and then void it(or have it voided) after the fact for "capacity" reasons.

Were you or were you not saying there is no such law making contracts voidable for people judged incompetent???


"""""""I'd love to see the law that states something along the lines of the woman not being responsible even though the dealership had no idea about the issues, and that it's their responsibility to have to deal with it."""""

I think it's clear there IS a law. Like I said in the other post - proving lack of capacity is another story. I'm sure her lawyer can find a doctor to say she thinks she's the king of Prussia.

P.S.

I'd appreciate toning down the "nice try" and "you've got to be kidding" stuff. I'm not "trying" anything other than having a discussion on DU. I'm not taking part in the deleted-thread-fest up-thread.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

184. Your Post Perplexes Me.

You state you don't care to argue about whether she was competent or not, yet I wasn't arguing whether or not she was. Then you made me do a huge 'did he really just say that?' when you put in bold a statement trying to declare that I was wrong about the law and should admit it, when my reply in fact showed the law to completely not apply. I sit here scratching my head as to what gave you any idea that the law actually existed or that your post had proved anything.

Read my reply again. The part of the law you referenced to try and bolster your claim DIDN'T EVEN COME CLOSE to applying to her here. In addition, the part of the law that I referenced actually blew your case out of the water by explicitly saying that even if she WAS incompetent, she'd STILL be responsible for the transaction.

So no, admitting I was wrong on the law would be preposterous since the law doesn't exist and I clearly showed that what you referenced was completely unable to be applied to her in regards to working FOR her, but rather showed that she WOULD be responsible. So the difference between the reality of the argument and your perception of what the law was is what is truly perplexing to me.

But what I will agree with you on is that in this case the dealership is most likely in the wrong, but that's solely due to their verbal agreement. That would apply to anybody regardless of having any disorder since a verbal agreement is binding as well. But outside of that verbal agreement, they would in no way have been responsible or obligated to take that vehicle back.

[Kingshakabobo]

185. I guess we're not speaking the same language or talking past each other.

You made a very strong statement that no such remedy existed in the law to void a contract if a person was judged incompetent. Your assertion was that there was no such law - for her OR anybody else.

The common law does exist...contrary to your original assertion that...

""If there was, people could constantly buy things and then claim not being of sound mind when doing so. It would be so taken advantage of it's not even funny.""""


The portion you bolded is but one piece of the law that the sellers attorney will probably try to assert - "that she was OTHERWISE able to UNDERSTAND the contract in spite of being INCOMPETENT.......but THAT'S arguing the case.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

193. No, You're Just Simply Not Understanding The Context Correctly.

"You made a very strong statement that no such remedy existed in the law to void a contract if a person was judged incompetent. Your assertion was that there was no such law - for her OR anybody else."

What are you talking about? I NEVER made such statements and I'm amazed that you actually perceived any of my statements to assert such. I would never be so ignorant as to state such a declaration. Of course there are remedies for severe mental incapacitation upon entering a contract. You say I said for her or ANYBODY else, but that's bullshit. You are wayyyyyyyy over broadening the scope here. We are not talking about someone who was suffering from mass delusions at the time. We are talking about someone who had an impulse control problem. Now when I said there is no law that would void a contract because someone has problems controlling their impulses, in the terms of being bi-polar, I am 100% correct and the law you posted even proves I'm correct. But don't turn it into a debate about anyone who is incompetent to varying degrees, as that was NOT what this debate was about.

"The common law does exist...contrary to your original assertion that..."

You keep saying that and I sit here amazed that you continue to not understand that the law you provided DOES NOT apply to this case AT ALL. Outside of the verbal agreement from the dealership to take the vehicle back, there is NO law that the woman can use here. If she tried to use the law you posted she'd be laughed out of court.

"The portion you bolded is but one piece of the law that the sellers attorney will probably try to assert - "that she was OTHERWISE able to UNDERSTAND the contract in spite of being INCOMPETENT.......but THAT'S arguing the case."

The portion I bolded is what totally makes her accountable for her actions. She has no defense against it. There is NOTHING in the article nor ANY reason based on her words to believe that she was in a state of delusion that kept her from knowing that what she was signing was a contract and that the contract means she will own a car. Are you seriously trying to assert that? If so, then I believe you have a complete misunderstanding of what actually happened here.

This is really quite simple and I hope you will attempt to understand the following: The law you provided DOES NOT apply in any way shape or form to this woman or her claims. Making a claim that due to BPD she can tend to be impulsive and finds it hard to control such impulse DOES NOT fall into a category of not understanding she was signing a contract or that the contract meant she would own the car. She test drove it, she listened to their sales points, she signed the contract, she drove away with the car. She knew full well what the outcome meant she just simply didn't have the self-control to say no. Since she wasn't in fact delusional or out of her mind to the degree of not recognizing what a contract is, the law you posted is completely non-applicable. In fact, the only thing the law you posted DOES show is that she IS indeed bound by the contract. I'm not sure why you aren't grasping this, as that part I bolded is clear as day to comprehend.

So no, we are not talking different languages here. I have thoroughly explained that the law you provided does not pertain to her. I have gone further to show that the other part of the law that does pertain to her does in fact show her to be contractually bound. This is not a misunderstanding. It is blatant fact. Whether you want to continue refusing to acknowledge this is up to you. But the lack of comprehension is not due to speaking different languages, it is simply due to your refusal to accept the reality.

But all this is rather moot, since what we are debating would only technically be relevant in my opinion if the dealership had no verbal agreement. Since there was a verbal agreement, then I consider the dealership to be obligated to take the car back.

[Kingshakabobo]

207. This is what you wrote.

"""If there was, people could constantly buy things and then claim not being of sound mind when doing so. It would be so taken advantage of it's not even funny.""""...then explain what you meant by this statement?????

Why won't you admit you claimed a person COULD NOT claim "not being of sound mind"(your term), as a defense, in your original post?

Forget about the dealership case for a minute because the above referenced quote was in reference to "people" or people other than the dealer case.

You made the assertion that there is no such thing as a sound mind defense to a contract. You even gave a reason WHY you believed there is no such thing as a sound mind defense. It's right there in black and white. You were wrong and your reasoning was wrong. BTW, I was referring to "capacity" which is a specific legal term used when referring to contracts.

My point IS and always has been that there can be NO contract without capacity. I stated as much in the original post that you responded to.

If I'm wrong, explain to me what you meant by people can not """"claim not being of sound mind when doing so. It would be so taken advantage of it's not even funny."""""

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

208. What A Joke.

The entire premise of this subthread was you saying there is a law that protects her in this case. You then copied a law and bolded parts of it to bolster your case. I then completely destroyed the premise with logic by showing that the bolded part in no way applied to her whatsoever, but that the part I bolded did; which showed she was in fact bound by the contract. You seem to be avoiding the thrashing of your argument in such ways completely. I have shown your argument to have no merit.

Now as far as the 'sound mind' comment goes, I found it hilarious that is what you're using as your defense. The comment was an aside and was after the fact of your initial premise of there being a law. I did not use that comment in ANY MANNER declaring what you attributed to it. You said the following:

"you claimed a person COULD NOT claim "not being of sound mind"(your term), as a defense"

No, no, I actually didn't say anything of the sort. No where can you show me where I said such things. To perceive such things as having been said is beyond absurd.

My use of the term 'sound mind' was just a descriptive quick term thrown out in an ancillary way and was not relevant whatsoever to the overall premise. My premise was that NO LAW EXISTS that says you are not responsible for purchases made out of impulse, even if bipolar. I have refuted your evidence that such a law does exist repeatedly and handily. The comment of mine you reference was ancillary to the main point. It may have used the term 'sound mind' but the context was obviously in reference to a law stating that impulse buying is protected. It was a statement saying "if there was a law stating that she was not responsible, people all over the place would begin abusing it as a defense when they had regrets from a purchase". The actual use of the term 'sound mind' was just descriptive and NOT in any way a statement of "There is no law that protects people who are not of sound mind". To deduce it as meaning such would be as warped a perception and example of skewing context as I've ever seen; especially since the comment was ancillary and after the main point of my post.

So spare me your "You said this blah blah blah, it's plain as black and white blah blah blah", as the premise is ridiculous and laughable.

The fact remains as it was: You jumped into a subthread and claimed that you're pretty sure there is a law that protects her. I said no, there isn't. You copied a law and bolded a part of it and implied it bolsters your case. I readily showed that the bolded part does not even in the SLIGHTEST way apply to her case here so the law DOES NOT in fact cover her, as you had thought it had. I then went on to bold a part of the law myself, which actually DID bolster my case by plainly and bluntly stating that she IS in fact responsible for the contract. You seem to have refused to acknowledge these simple aspects ever since and are now still going round and round trying to convince yourself you were right somehow. But you weren't. Not by a longshot. I've more than shown that to be true by now. The fact is, we were talking about a law in regards to the circumstances of THIS CASE. It was about buying something under impulse, though the impulse is part of being bipolar. THOSE are the boundaries of this discussion and the boundaries of which the law you referenced MUST cover. That is the context. You cannot avoid the fact that you jumped into the subthread confident there was a law but have since been shown quite readily that the LAW DOES NOT APPLY for her but actually proved that she IS in fact bound to the contract.

I'm amazed you're still going round and round with this; I really am. You can argue till you're blue in the face but the facts are there and glaring. I said there is no law that would cover the impulse aspect of this case. You said there was. You copied a law that you felt was proof. I replied with a thorough refutation of how the law does not apply to her in the ways you wanted it to, but instead applied against her holding her responsible. That's what this subthread is about. That is what is clear as day. You posted a law but you were misguided in its interpretation. I have shown this to be so and you've avoided that altogether while attempting to cling onto some strange notion that you are still in the right. I'm just perplexed as to your perception of this. Don't know what else to tell ya.

[Kingshakabobo]

210. My original post was in reference to YOUR statement that the ...

....dealership is somehow protected in contract if they didn't know her mental capacity/mental illness. They're not IF, and it's a big if, she is judged incompetent - for whatever reason(mental illness/intoxication). I thought I made my self clear that I don't agree that her disease is applicable - I said her attorney was "aiming for" that defense.

"""I bolded the part her attorney's are probably aiming for. If she can PROVE there was no capacity, she gets out. She doesn't have to prove the dealer knew. It's pretty simple - no capacity means no contract - proving it is another matter. Car dealers have the deck STACKED against them in court. They'll lose this case.

Note where I said aiming for.

You feign indignance that I can mis-interpret your "sound mind" statement but you STILL haven't explained what you meant by your statements...."""I'd love to see the law that states something along the lines of the woman not being responsible even though the dealership had no idea about the issues"""" You never qualify for bi-polar,,,as a matter of fact, YOU expanded the scope by making the absurd claim ..."If there was, people could constantly buy things and then claim not being of sound mind"........you are wrong. 100% wrong. Sorry. The defense is there and it isn't abused because it has to go to court.....it's expensive to mount that defense.


""""My premise was that NO LAW EXISTS that says you are not responsible for purchases made out of impulse, even if bipolar. I have refuted your evidence that such a law does exist repeatedly and handily.""""

There you go again. THIS exactly WHERE YOU WENT WRONG. That statement is FACTUALLY INCORRECT.....unless you can show me case law that "bi-polar" is specifically excluded from use as a contract defense. No, you haven't refuted ANYTHING relating to incompetence through lack of "capacity".....which is what we have been discussing all along. All you have done is made an argument, based on ABSOLUTELY NO authority or case law that "bi-polar" SHOULDN'T be a defense. I agree, that's what the dealer's attorney will argue but it needs to go before a judge/jury. I've maintained ALL THROUGH THIS THREAD, NO CAPACITY=NO CONTRACT.....PROVING lack of capacity is a different matter.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

212. Last Time.

"My original post was in reference to YOUR statement that the dealership is somehow protected in contract if they didn't know her mental capacity/mental illness. They're not IF, and it's a big if, she is judged incompetent - for whatever reason(mental illness/intoxication)"

You continue to completely misunderstand the very law you supplied. First of all, since we are talking about a woman whose only defense is that she couldn't control her impulses due to BPD, then the terms of the law must cover such a scenario as this. The one you supplied doesn't. And yes, you were referencing my statement that the dealership would've had to been aware of her BPD in order for them to share responsibility. Nothing you've supplied has changed that statement. You've tried to broaden the argument into a completely different one by including all mental issues, but that WAS NOT what was being discussed at the time you jumped in. We are discussing the circumstances of THIS woman and how the specific act of buying out of impulse, even if due to BPD, is not something that then deems the dealership at fault. You said it does. You said they'd have to eat it. You said there was a law covering it. There is no law covering this impulse type issue. You were simply wrong.

You go on now to state that IF she is judged incompetent, for whatever reason, that the dealership is then responsible. This is a BLATANT misreading of the actual law that YOU supplied. The law states NO SUCH THING. In fact, the law DOES state that even if deemed incompetent, as long as the buyer was aware a contract was being signed and that a contract means obligation, they are still BOUND by that contract. The very law you supplied actually refutes your own goddamn argument. Now there is NO premise put forth that she was delusional at the time or in any other state of mind that would keep her from knowing she was signing a contract or what signing a contract means. That isn't even up for dispute in my opinion. The details of what happened are pretty clear. Since she DID know she was signing a contract and knows FULL WELL that by doing so she was owning a new car, the law you supplied DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL. I'm not sure what you're not grasping about this.

"I bolded the part her attorney's are probably aiming for. If she can PROVE there was no capacity, she gets out. She doesn't have to prove the dealer knew. It's pretty simple - no capacity means no contract - proving it is another matter."

I fail to see how they could possibly be aiming for that since a high schooler in a criminal justice case could readily throw that argument away. Like I said above, there has been ZERO reason given and ZERO reason to believe that she wasn't aware she was signing something and was also unaware that signing something meant she was getting a car. She test drove the car for God's sake. She took it home for God's sake. She knew damn well what her actions meant. She just simply didn't think them through and went ahead with the deal anyway, out of impulse possibly brought on by her BPD. But that impulse in NO WAY falls under the clause you bolded which plainly states she would've had to have not known she was signing a contract and not understood that by doing so it meant she would own a car she'd have to pay for. To make an argument otherwise would be beyond absurd and silly.

"Car dealers have the deck STACKED against them in court. They'll lose this case."

Only because they made a verbal agreement, if they did in fact make one. I think they SHOULD lose this case if they made a verbal agreement. However if there was no verbal agreement or one hadn't been brought into this case to begin with, I think the chances would be MONUMENTALLY high that her case would be thrown out of court.



"you STILL haven't explained what you meant by your statements...."""I'd love to see the law that states something along the lines of the woman not being responsible even though the dealership had no idea about the issues"""" You never qualify for bi-polar,,,as a matter of fact, YOU expanded the scope by making the absurd claim ..."If there was, people could constantly buy things and then claim not being of sound mind"........you are wrong. 100% wrong. Sorry. The defense is there and it isn't abused because it has to go to court.....it's expensive to mount that defense."

God it's like talking to a fucking wall. Jesus christ. How can you possibly use the statement "you never qualify for bipolar" as if I'm obligated to fucking spoon feed you? It was qualified directly within the context itself, by being stated within context. The WHOLE FUCKING CONTEXT OF THE PREMISE WAS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS WOMAN. THE WHOLE FUCKING CONCEPT PERTAINS AROUND HER BEING BIPOLAR. What's even more amazing to me is that you yet again make this ridiculous claim that I expanded scope by my ancillary comment, even though I already more than explained how ridiculous that concept was to begin with. That statement in no way broadened any scope. Nowhere in that post does it say "there is no law that protects anyone not of sound mind". You're seeing what you want to see. You're perceiving what you need to perceive. You perception is wrong. To say I'm 100% wrong shows so clearly how you have not understood this entire subthread. I don't even know how to break through to you. Your convinced you are right yet you've been shown in so many ways to not be. If you want to continue holding on to such a position while also claiming me in the wrong, though I'm the only one who has provided solid refutation of the argument, I guess I can't stop you. But I find it to be astoundingly shocking.


""""My premise was that NO LAW EXISTS that says you are not responsible for purchases made out of impulse, even if bipolar. I have refuted your evidence that such a law does exist repeatedly and handily.""""

"There you go again. THIS exactly WHERE YOU WENT WRONG. That statement is FACTUALLY INCORRECT.....unless you can show me case law that "bi-polar" is specifically excluded from use as a contract defense. No, you haven't refuted ANYTHING relating to incompetence through lack of "capacity".....which is what we have been discussing all along. All you have done is made an argument, based on ABSOLUTELY NO authority or case law that "bi-polar" SHOULDN'T be a defense. I agree, that's what the dealer's attorney will argue but it needs to go before a judge/jury. I've maintained ALL THROUGH THIS THREAD, NO CAPACITY=NO CONTRACT.....PROVING lack of capacity is a different matter."

Here we go again. You just refuse to listen. That is not where I went wrong. You can say so, but that doesn't change sound fact. You say the statement is factually incorrect, yet it is not. Purchases made out of impulse do not qualify as delusion. You can try and make that claim as much as you want but it would still remain an absurd one. You want to keep trying to make a case that the law you provided is relevant to this specific incident. It isn't. I've shown that it isn't. You now want to broaden it to be an argument about something even outside of this incident, but you can't do that. This incident is what we are discussing in this thread. All of my comments are in reference to the context of this incident. You can't just wage a generic capacity argument in the middle of a discussion about a specific case with specific boundaries. In this case, in this context, capacity is dealing with her having made a purchase impulsively. That DOES NOT fall under the two definitions you bolded as defense for nullifying a contract. They just don't. No matter what you try to claim, they just simply don't. I don't know how to make this any clearer for you. And how can you even have the gall to say I haven't refuted anything? I've REFUTED EVERYTHING! You continue to twist and warp the entire premise of what this discussion is about, but I have never strayed from the focus. I've been forced to be redundant as all fucking hell, but I've remained on focus. You say I've made an argument based on no authority or case law that bi-polar shouldn't be a defense. I call BULLSHIT on that one. YOU are the one who said there WAS a law. YOU have the onus to have supplied such a law. You quite simply DIDN'T. You supplied a different law about DIFFERENT mental issues. But you did not supply a law that applies to the merits of this case. The only way you can dispute that last claim of mine is if you are actually willing to make an argument that her purchasing the car out of impulse means she didn't know the paper she was signing was a contract (like, she thought they wanted her autograph or somethin) and she didn't know that meant she now owned a car (cause like, that new car she was driving home in she had thought was her old one. She was delusional, dontcha know?). So if you want to make that case go right ahead. It is the ONLY way in which your entire argument of law here will carry any weight whatsoever, since whether you like it or not we ARE talking about the context of this woman and her circumstance. We ARE talking about buying out of impulse due to BPD. Now if you want to show that doing such falls into the clause you bolded, go right ahead. I'd LOVE to see how you could possible get that to fall under their power. As a last point, you again state that no capacity = no contract. Again, that's not entirely true. Only under the terms set out by the law does that apply. And furthermore, I don't really care about that anyway, since that is not the focus of our debate. Of course those in severe delusion and of no mental capacity are protected. But this thread IS NOT talking about them. This thread IS talking about a woman with BPD who made an impulse purchase. You butted into a reply of mine and said that the dealership was responsible and would have to eat it because you're pretty sure there's a law that protects her here from her impulses and puts the responsiblity on them. This entire huge redundant subthread comes down to this simple factual point: YOU DID NOT SUPPLY A LAW THAT BOLSTERS THAT POSITION. THE LAW YOU SUPPLIED DOES NOT RELATE TO THIS CASE. THE LAW YOU SUPPLIED ACTUALLY PROVED MY CASE. YOU WERE WRONG IN PREMISE. THE LAW DID NOT EXIST. THE DEALERSHIP WAS NOT OBLIGATED. THE DEALERSHIP WOULD NOT HAVE TO EAT IT. These are indisputable facts as they pertain to THIS case. If you don't want to accept that I don't know what to tell you. The ONLY reason they may now have obligation is due to a verbal agreement. That's it. That's the ONLY reason.

So I'll let you have the last word now because this has been a monumental waste of time trying to get you to understand these facts. I have no reason to believe, no matter how many times I have to repost the facts, that you will all of a sudden become aware to why you were in the wrong here. I fully expect your reply to repeat yet again the same false statements, accusations and premises that I've already handily defeated and refuted ten times over now. So go for it. I can't stop you. But I'm done. There's nothing more I can possibly do to explain this to you.

So I'll let you have your last words. Have at it.

See ya.

[Kingshakabobo]

215. You can't get it through your thick skull that I was referring to "capacity"...

....not the myriad of terms that YOU wish to parse and add to the discussion(delusional? doesn't have SQUAT to do with this discussion).

You've just written a 2000 word essay on your own intellectual dishonesty. Good job!!

[lukasahero]

186. She's not "reckless and irresponsible", she has a disease.

And, while it may not be the responsibility of "strangers to take care of her" (although I like to believe we live in a world where people might actually do that for each other), it is the responsibility of the law to protect her.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

195. She Has A Disorder (Not Disease) That Causes Her To Act Reckless And Irresponsible.

And it is only the responsibility of the law to protect her from having her disorder taken advantage of through manipulation, fraud or malicious intent.

I challenge you to find me ANYTHING in ANY article that gives reason to believe the dealership was aware of her disorder at the time of the transaction and purposely took advantage of her by having that knowledge. Only in that case would the law technically be able to protect her.

[Madspirit]

205. Yes, according to the AMA, APA, etc.

Bipolar Disorder most certainly is a disease. It's not "just" a disorder whatever the hell that implies. I guess some people think they are smarter even than all the doctors in the world. I suggest people have a look at the DSM or at the APA's website, etc.

Lee

[tammywammy]

105. First off, this story is lacking

Once she signed the contract and drove off it was her car and the dealership was under no obligation to accept it's return. There isn't a grace period for buying cars, though it's a common misconception. But once the dealership said they'd accept it, they should have. I don't know if there was a miscommunication with the documents the doctor was to provide, and I'd like to read more details on this case. Did the woman and her husband do damage to the vehicle? Did they take a cross-country trip racking up miles? The dealership may have a valid actual reason for not allowing the return in the end.


And how was the dealership to know that she was suffering from bi-polar? There are a lot of impulsive people out there that buy cars. And I have seen people come in for an oil change and leave with a new car. And I've seen cars less than 6 months old traded in.

[kiahzero]

108. They didn't drive off with the car.

It was delivered to their home after the contract was repudiated.

[marions ghost]

187. right

this is the key factor.

The dealership should take the car back. End of story.

[depakid]

113. And how are you to know?

What the dealership - and its employees did?

I reckon that you know well- in your heart of hearts- that you don't have a grasp on that, any more that I do.

This woman has a prima facie case- and that's why (once upon a time) we put some trust into the civil justice system.

Let's let the truth come out from ago old methods- not prejudices- processes designed to resolves disputes. Can we at least agree on that?

[tammywammy]

115. That's why I started off with the fact that the story is lacking

I'd like to know all the details.

I clearly stated that once the dealership said they'd accept the vehicle back that should have allowed it, but that we don't know what happened.

[depakid]

116. Fair enough

My apologies.

[tammywammy]

117. It's okay

:)

I did find another more detailed story:
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070313/METRO02/703130353/1009

[depakid]

138. You do recognize?

One can only hope.

What more is it that one might say?

See the posts under my name above.

[RB TexLa]

139. The only way to get out of a car deal once the car has been

delivered either by yourself (ie driving it off the property) or left in your possession by the dealer, is to call the finance company. Doesn't always work but if you tell them that you shouldn't have bought the car because you are filing for bankruptcy in the morning, they can and I have seen them make the dealer go get the car.

[Madspirit]

143. Except

In the OP it says the car dealer agreed to take back the car but then did not.
Lee

[RB TexLa]

145. Well they apparently asked them to do so when they had no legal

obligation to do so.

I was actually commenting more on the various discussions about how one does get them to take a car back.

[Kingshakabobo]

174. That won't work in 95% of the cases. But it will in some cases - like you said.

Dealer-bank agreements have clauses in them to protect the dealers. Once it's approved it's approved. Any F&I manager worth his salt will have the loan approved(at several lenders) before you get home. You MIGHT be able to unwind if you can get your employer to say you aren't employed but most lenders don't do verbal verifications if you have good/excellent credit.....so they'll, most likely, send it somewhere else.

Sub-prime lenders DO call the customer to verify possession(and intent to make payments) of the car so, YES, it is easier to unwind from a sub-prime deal. This is a scenario where bruised credit MIGHT protect you.

[MedleyMisty]

157. My father-in-law bought a truck while he was manic once

They still have it. It's useful for hauling stuff.

[flashlighter]

166. If she's not able to make decisions like this, why doesn't she give POA to someone else?

that way, she wouldn't be legally responsable. It seems like that might have worked in her favor.

[dddem]

183. my father used to say that he knew when my mother was at her sickest

because that's when she was convinced there as nothing wrong with her.

[mtnester]

217. I hear you loud and clear there...

when a family member insists that it is absolutely, perfectly normal to dress up in black, and sneak around or drive around to spy on the person who they think is "after" them....or who they think is looking at or bothering their computer at work, or telling you that someone she sees on a street is out to get her, then looks at ME like I am insane when I ask her how she is doing with her meds, and says she is perfectly fine and nothing is wrong with her...I know that the next few weeks or months are about to get horribly scary and out of control...for her and everyone around her who tries to look after her, and at this point, the best we can hope is to keep her alive during this time.

Patience is sometimes a limitless, and other times unlimited thing.

[kurth]

180. Assholes took advantage of a sick woman

Plain and simple.

[Codeine]

182. How the Hell did they know?

Does she have "Bipolar" tattooed on her forehead?

Dealerships sell cars. If you aren't able to resist the allure of purchasing one don't go into the dealership, plain and simple.

[gollygee]

198. I guess this is why courts exist

I don't see how I could figure out who is in the right based on this article. Did the dealer have any idea she was bipolar? Even if he couldn't tell she was bipolar, could he tell she had a weakness he might be able to exploit? What were his sales techniques? Maybe he honestly didn't have any idea. Or maybe he figured out there was a way to get a deal he might not have gotten with someone else.

Then I'd have to know about this verbal agreement - what specifically was said, and if there is any potentially valid reason for not taking it back after that. I'd want to hear those arguments anyway.

On one hand, we can't allow people to take advantage of people with mental illnesses. On the other hand, businesses can't be expected to just know that someone is mentally ill, and they shouldn't necessarily be expected to take a loss if someone with a mental illness buys a car.

[Tom Joad]

203. Can Hillary explain her vote for the IWR this way?

[Madspirit]

Double-edged Sword

I am bipolar. It is a devastating illness. I think it would be really nice if this car dealer allowed this woman to return her car.
Also, most states allow that a person has to be in a state capable of making informed decisions for a contract to hold up. In most states if you can show you were drunk as a hooter when you signed the contract and you can prove the person knew you were, the contract is not valid. If a schizophrenic came in and said:

"Hi, I'm Jesus and I want to buy that car because voices are telling to."

The contract would not be valid. Most states recognize informed consent as a requirement for a contract to be valid.

If a bipolar was in the depths of some florid euphoria and it was obvious, the contract won't hold.

However, if there was no way for this dealer to tell this then I really don't like the idea of the lawsuit or her using her mental illness to get out of the agreement EVEN if she really was in a state where she could not make informed consent.

I'm a lesbian. I cannot marry the person I have been with for 15 years. To make our lives legal we have to sign things...all things. Our relationship depends on contracts. Home ownership, inheritance rights, car ownership, etc.; it all depends on our signatures. I would hate like hell for someone to be able to come along and make what I have signed NOT legal because I am bipolar. I don't want to be infantalized because of my illness.

So, if she was obviously out of her head, fine, sue, make them take the car back. That's already the law. Someone has to be in a state of mind able to make informed decisions before a contract is valid. However, if she appeared normal to the dealer, she should not do this. If, out of the kindness of his heart, he wants to take the car back, fine. I do not want my decisions questioned as a matter of law because I suffer from a mental illness. My life depends on my being ABLE to sign contracts. So I would have to sacrifice this one woman to keep all our rights safe.
Lee

[Madspirit]

209. deleted dupe

[kerry-is-my-prez]

213. A person who is mentally ill at the time of the contract can "avoid" the contract sometimes.

If the salesperson could tell that the person was mentally ill or impaired when they signed the contract the contract is probably void.

These laws are there to prevent others from taking "advantage" of the mentally disabled.


"A party that suffers a mental illness or defect at the time the contract is made may avoid the contract where the mental impairment prevented him from:

understanding the nature and consequences of the transaction; or
acting in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction, and the other party had reason to know of his condition."

[Madspirit]

219. I realize ..

I understand that this is to protect us with mental illnesses but I don't want to be protected out of my right to have contracts I sign respected. See my post two above. My life depends on my signature being "good".
Lee

[pampango]

216. 1. Is is ALWAYS someone else's fault, not your own.

2. Sue that someone else.

The two rules of modern American conduct. (Of course, it does not always apply, just frequently, and may not in this case.)

[Redneck Socialist]

226. I worked in a store where that happened

A woman came in, bought thousands of dollars worth of stuff only to have her family return it all the next day.

Sad.