Moral and ethical questions can be rather contentious and people often come to different conclusions, and there's nontrivial moral weight to due process and the

Moral and ethical questions can be rather contentious and people often come to different conclusions, and there's nontrivial moral weight to due process and the rule of law. Many people are better off operating in a consistent and predictable legal framework, so if someone is violating current law, that's relevant to a moral evaluation of a situation. Further, establishing what current law has to say about a situation, and what actually happened in the situation, is a required prerequisite to a discussion about proposed policy changes. Trying to propose changes to the law to change people's rights in situations like this without knowing what the actual details are or whether those details are already in violation or compliance with current law isn't exactly productive, especially given the base rate of inaccurate and incomplete reporting. Phrased a bit differently, "should" and "shouldn't" aren't completely independent from a given regulatory environment, in that there's nontrivial societal benefit from people knowing what to expect. In cases where some people have decided that certain clauses in a contract are unacceptable (noncompete employment agreements in some states, for example) we've explicitly documented that. If you have opinions on regulation of contracts for auto purchases relevant to this situation, it's absolutely worth first establishing when the contract specified transfer of title, whether or not the contract mentioned the $200 removal fee, and what current law has to say about that.