Also, in 1993, the NAACP Legal Defence Fund honoured Sir Sydney Poitier, alongside fellow icon Harry Belafonte, with the Thurgood Marshall Lifetime Achievement Award.

One of a few men I’ve always admired and always will. RIP KING.

I wouldn’t call ‘The Defiant Ones’, ‘In the Heat of the Night’ or ‘Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner’ safe. All of those were groundbreaking.

If you didn’t live through those times, I guess you might consider them tame, but that’s because the ground is now broken. 

I love Sidney Poitier and have immense respect for him and what he accomplished. But yes a number of roles he took were “safe” roles. Honestly though, I feel by doing that he paved the way for other black actors to take on less safe roles.

Rest well, sir. My father loves him and made sure we saw his films. Both parents became fans in Africa and still celebrate him. When I was younger I reached a point where I judged him for being palatable to White folks. But as with all successive generations, I never lived through what he did nor could I fathom the…

RIP....Impressive body of work by any standard.

One of my all time favorite actors, hands down.

There’s no one cooler.

The kid is largely blameless. The grandpa probably should’ve known better, but didn’t.

The dealer totally is on the hook here.  They need to prove that the kid does not have legal ownership, which according to his paperwork he does have.  If they’re not on the hook then the laws are unjust in that state.  

Their position is that once the vehicle was sold to the kid, they no longer had to get permission from the court to repossess it.

Ah - it must be in one of the linked articles, because I still don’t see it this article.

The dealer would give the car to the kid because they claim to be “doing whatever they can to make it right,” (quoted from the linked article). I suspect that they have the legal ownership of the car and therefore could tell the kid “finders keepers, losers weepers”. But they could also choose to work out something…

Usually when you buy a car from a dealer you don’t get the title right away -- it gets mailed to you when the transfer goes through. This is different from how private-party sales work in most states.

It says so in the source article: Steelman sold the car while waiting for the title from I Drive-DFW, which he never got, because I Drive-DFW says he never owned the car. So the kid never had the title either.

It doesn’t matter.  Under contract law, if the salesperson appeared to the buyer to have the authority to sell the vehicle, then the sales contract was valid and binding upon the car dealership.  

Where does it say he didn’t have title? The salesman clearly had possession of the car. The keys. The ability to exclusively use it. The kid bought it and drove it for 6 months with no issue. I’m assuming he registered it if he drove it for that long without being stopped by the cops. None of that sounds like the…

That assumes the dealership ever had the $10K. My spidey-sense is that bankrupt fraudster owed at least that much on it, and used the money for anything but paying it off.

If they are unwilling to do that they could potentially give him a car worth $10,000 and it would also be satisfactory. Perhaps a certain 2016 Mazda CX-5.

And while the dealer is trying to make it right for Fredricks, he’s still out of $10,000 and a car.