Who is right in this scenario?
A has an automatic only driving licence and an automatic car. She is a single mother with an autistic son. A decides to emigrate to Australia. On leaving she sells the car to a friend of her mum's.
Two years and 4 months later, the mum's friend puts the car up for sale as he is getting on a bit and can no longer handle it. He's disabled, and getting a bit forgetful and confused. A's sister (B) decides to buy the car as she's been offered a good price for it and it's a good family car. B is married with two young kids. B has just passed her test and has a full license. Her husband also drives but only has a van with three seats.
A comes back from Australia 5 months after the sale to visit her family and will be here for a month. A is very upset to learn the family friend no longer has the car and it now belongs to B. Apparently A had an agreement that when she came back to visit, she could borrow the car and she was relying on it. She now has no car to use while she is there and can't afford to hire one, and it's harder to find automatic cars and more expensive. She demands that B lend her the car for the duration of her stay. B says no. It's her car and she needs it and relies on it for school runs and work. She was not aware of nor did she enter into any agreement with A.
A cannot believe she is being left stranded and that her family would do this to her.
Who is right - morally.
YABU - A
YANBU - B