Lending a car- who is right?

[Applescruffle]

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

How is it relevant? The car was sold to someone. Someone else has now bought the car. That person doesn't need to honour an agreement by two other individuals.

I suppose, if there is a written agreement, the original car owner could pursue their purchaser for costs but it's absolutely nothing to do with the subsequent purchaser.

Ridiculous arrangement and arrogant of A to think it would be in place with original owner let alone anyone it was sold to

A needs to behave

A is completely deluded and hugely unhinged!

A and b is confusing as hell, and unnecessary. She can't be that close with her sister if she doesn't know that the car was sold to her. And no, it's up to her to secure transport whilst she's on holiday if she wants it

A is being ridiculous.
I accidentally voted for A and now can't change it!

But I can understand her point, if she did have this arrangement and has lost it.
But it is not Bs problem, the arrangement wasn't with her.

@Applescruffle a contract should of been drawn up to include this then there is a paper trail to prove who is correct

Suppose the car had been in an accident and written off. What would A have done then? Whatever A would have done in that situation is exactly what A needs to do now.

If he had sold the car to completely unrelated C, A would not be expecting to borrow it. A is a CF.

its Barbaras car and she can do what she likes with it. Alice will need to find her own solution to being carless. Maybe she could text round friends and family to see what f they know of a car she can borrow?

Neither the old chap or yourself knew about the agreement so how can you adhere to it?

Alice's position on this does, on face value, seem a bit batshit. Once you sell your car, that's it.

However, if she sold the car to her mum's friend for a significantly below market value price, on condition she could use it when she was in the UK, then I can see her POV. She traded the value of the car she didn't receive for a future benefit. Mum's friend benefits by getting a better car than he would otherwise for the money.

If her sister likewise benefitted from a below market value price when she bought the car off their mum's old friend, then to Alice's mind, her sister is benefitting from the original premise of the deal but Alice isn't

It's odd that Alice's mum knew about the deal for Alice to have access to the car on her return but seems to have said nothing to daughter B about it nor to her friend, when he said he was going to sell it. It seems unlikely B didn't also know about the deal even though logistically she can't honour it. Why didn't Alice's mum tell Alice, before she returned to the UK, that her old car had been sold to her sister who wasn't in a position to let her use it and that she needed to budget for a rental car. Alice was silly to think the original plan would work: as PPs have said, the car might have been written off in the interim / developed some terminal mechanical failure and she was relying on someone else to help her avoid £x in car rental costs. Far better to have sold the car for its full market rate and left the money to one side to mitigate car rental costs as and when she returns. Bird in the hand and all that.

If the car was sold at market price to the mum's friend, Alice had no grounds to try and retain access to it which might explain why mum's friend forgot about it (filed it away under "instantly forgettable batshit idea, never going to happen") and why mum remembered ("Alice trying to have her cake and eat it, AGAIN").

This has been sold on twice now. She cannot expect to use it when ever she's back! If she wanted it then she should have stored it away, or hired one. What if the person who bought it died, it would have been sold off by family and long gone by now. A is being massively unreasonable.