Okay, thank you K.
At this point, here is what is happening:
1) You are stating that you never authorized the work.
2) They are stating that you did.
You and them are at standstill. They may not release the vehicle and/or place a lien for alleged contract, unless you pay.
What someone in your situation may wish to do at this time is to file a Writ of Replevin
to get the vehicle back
. This is a court action where one says "they have my property and I want it back." See here
This may help to prevent them from filing a lien and then they'd have to go to this hearing and explain themselves.
They may claim that there WAS a contract. Then it would be up to the Judge to believe. They may also attempt to claim "quasi-contract." "The essential elements of quasi contract are a benefit conferred on the defendant by the plaintiff, appreciation by the defendant of such benefit, and acceptance and retention by the defendant of such benefit under circumstances such that it would be inequitable for him to retain the benefit without payment of the value thereof." 17 C.J.S. Contracts § 6
. In essence, it means that they did the work, and should at least be entitled to something
if they THOUGHT you authorized repairs.
Someone in your situation may wish to claim that there was no such authorization, and, they did this deliberately. In the end, it is up to the Court. Of course, often, they may just release the vehicle before/after it being filed to avoid litigation.
I hope this helps and clarifies. Good luck.
Gentle Reminder: Please use the REPLY
button to keep chatting, or RATE
my answer when we are finished. Kindly rate my answer as one of the top three faces
and then submit
, as this is how I get credit for my time with you. Rating my answer the bottom two faces does not give me credit and reflects poorly on me, even if my answer is correct.
I work very hard to formulate an informative and honest answer for you; please reciprocate my good faith. (You may always ask follow ups at no charge after rating