Bowling v. Sperry

Indiana Court of Appeals · 1962 · Contracts

ContractsInfancyNecessariesDisaffirmanceminorinfancy defensevoidable contractsdisaffirmance

Facts

At age sixteen, Larry Bowling bought a 1947 Plymouth from Max E. Sperry for $140 cash, paying $50 first and later paying the remaining $90 and taking possession of the car. Sperry knew Larry was a minor, and the written receipt showed the sale was to Larry alone. After driving the car for about a week, Larry discovered the main bearing was burned out, returned the car to Sperry's lot, refused to pay repair costs, and sent a letter disaffirming the contract and demanding return of his money. Larry's aunt and grandmother had accompanied him at the purchase, and his aunt had loaned him $90 for the final payment.

Issue

May a minor who purchased an automobile disaffirm the contract and recover the purchase price without restoring the seller to statu quo, even though relatives accompanied him and one relative supplied part of the money? Also, was the automobile a necessary that would prevent disaffirmance on these facts?

Rule

In Indiana, a minor's contracts concerning personal property are voidable and may be disaffirmed during minority or upon reaching full age. The minor need not place the other party in statu quo and need not tender back the money or property received before suing to recover money or property given to the adult. An exception exists for necessaries: when necessaries are sold and delivered to an infant, the infant must pay a reasonable price, and necessaries are goods suitable to the infant's condition in life and actual requirements at the time of delivery.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Seventeen-year-old Noah Mercer bought a used dirt bike for cash from Riverbend Motors, a fictional dealership in Dayton, Ohio. The salesperson knew Noah was under eighteen, and the sales receipt listed Noah alone as the purchaser. Two weeks later, while still a minor, Noah notified the dealership that he was disaffirming the purchase and demanded his money back.

Which is the strongest argument for Noah under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule applied here is that a minor's contracts regarding personal property are voidable and may be disaffirmed during minority or upon reaching full age. The minor's right does not depend on proving fraud, obtaining parental approval, or showing breach of warranty. The key points are minority, a personal property contract, and disaffirmance.