Hall v. Butterfield

New Hampshire Supreme Court · Contracts

ContractsInfancyCapacity to Contractinfancyminorvoidable contractbenefit receivedrestitution

Facts

The plaintiffs sought recovery based on an express contract under which the defendant agreed to pay for goods. The defendant was an infant and elected to avoid the contract by pleading infancy. The opinion states that the express contract was voidable at the defendant's election. The dispute was whether, despite avoidance of the express contract, the plaintiffs could still recover for the benefit the defendant received from the goods.

Issue

When an infant avoids an express contract by pleading infancy, does that plea completely bar the seller's recovery, or may the seller recover the value of the benefit actually received by the infant from the goods, up to the agreed price?

Rule

The contract of an infant, whether executed or executory, cannot be rescinded or avoided without restoring the consideration received to the other party, or allowing that party to recover compensation for all the benefit conferred upon the infant. Thus, infancy defeats recovery on the express contract itself, but does not bar recovery to the extent of the benefit actually received by the infant, not exceeding the agreed price. Whether the infant received a benefit, and to what extent, is a mixed question of law and fact.

🔒

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.

In Portland, Maine, 17-year-old Noah Mercer agreed in writing to buy a used commercial dough mixer from Pine Wharf Supply for $2,400 to expand a weekend baking business. He used the mixer for four months, earned money from it, then disaffirmed the deal and pleaded infancy when Pine Wharf sued for the contract price.

What is the best result?

Explanation. The majority states that infancy is a complete answer only so far as recovery depends on the express contract itself. But avoidance does not necessarily eliminate all liability. The seller may recover compensation for the benefit actually conferred on the infant, and that recovery cannot exceed the agreed price. The rule is not limited to necessaries.