Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy1375
If the police recognize the verbal agreement, why shouldn't I? They are the ones enforcing the issue. They are the ones who could arrest portum89 for falsifying a police report. Do you not understand that he would have to lie to report it stolen?
It would be a shame if portum89 reported it stolen, got in trouble for falsifying a police report, and golden763 suffered no consequences. That is the situation I don't want to see happen.
As far as golden763, he could crash into a wall and die a fiery death and I'd feel like he got what was coming to him. No matter what I or anyone else feels about him, the legal facts are what they are.
|
Relax dude! It was as simple question, and you completely dodged it and are getting defensive. I'm not a lawyer, you seem more versed in legal jargon, so I'm just asking here, not making a statement or attacking you. So I'll try again.
I never suggested falsifying a police report (others may have but not me), so we can just put that item to rest. All I said is to report it stolen. I never suggested to withhold or hide details, or lie to them them when you call it in stolen. Give them the details. To me, whether you recognize the agreement or not, this is still stolen.
I never told you not to recognize the agreement, all I'm trying to say is if the agreement is recognizable (by you, the cops, the virgin mary), then why does it sound like your saying the only person responsible for this agreement is Portam, why isn't the entire agreement recognized? There's two people involved in this agreement, both of which had obligations, right? The agreement wasn't "Golden you get the car, period". It was probably more like "Golden you get the car, Portam you get money, deal". So why does it sound like you're saying Golden is off the hook simply because an agreement was made? He never fulfilled his part of the agreement, doesn't that matter? Does this verbal agreement just gives him until the end of eternity to fulfill his half? Portam gave him the car (he fulfilled his half). Golden hasn't paid him in over a year now (violation of his half). That is stolen. No different than if you agreed to sell me a turbo, I show up, write you a bad check and leave with the turbo, and I just ignore you for a year. Is that not stealing?
The question is, Golden never fulfilled his part of the agreement, he now has possesion of car that he never paid for, and doesn't have the title to. HOW IS THIS NOT STOLEN?