Webster Street Partnership v. Sheridan

Nebraska Supreme Court · Contracts

ContractsInfancyNecessariesDisaffirmanceminor contractsinfancy defensenecessariesquasi-contract

Facts

Webster Street leased an apartment to Sheridan and Wilwerding, knowing both tenants were minors when the lease was executed. The tenants paid a $150 security deposit, $100 for the remainder of September 1982, and $250 for October 1982, but did not pay November rent; after Webster Street's agent told them to pay immediately or vacate, they left the apartment. The tenants asserted infancy, claimed the lease was voidable, and argued the apartment was not a necessary. The undisputed evidence showed both had voluntarily left home and were free to return to their parents' homes at any time.

Issue

Whether minor tenants who leased an apartment that was not a necessary could disaffirm the lease and avoid further liability, and whether Sheridan disaffirmed within a reasonable time after reaching majority. A related question was whether emancipation mattered under these facts.

Rule

An infant generally lacks capacity to bind himself absolutely by contract and may avoid a contract for nonnecessaries during minority or within a reasonable time after reaching majority. Liability for necessaries arises not from the contract itself but from a quasi-contract for the value of necessaries furnished, and whether something is a necessary depends on the particular facts, including the infant's actual need and whether a parent or guardian is able and willing to supply it. Upon disaffirmance, the contract is treated as if it never existed: the infant may recover payments made, and the adult is entitled to the return of whatever the infant received.

🔒

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 Des Moines, 17-year-old Lena Ortiz signed a six-month lease with Riverbend Flats, a fictional apartment owner that knew she was a minor. Lena had left her parents' house after an argument, but her parents repeatedly told her she could return at any time and they would give her a room. After paying a deposit and one month's rent, Lena moved out and denied liability for the rest of the lease.

If Riverbend Flats sues for the remaining rent, what is the strongest argument for Lena under the governing rule?

Explanation. A minor may avoid a contract for nonnecessaries during minority or within a reasonable time after reaching majority. Whether housing is a necessary depends on actual need, and it is not a necessary if the minor has a parent able and willing to provide shelter. Because Lena could return home, the apartment was not a necessary, so the lease is avoidable and not enforceable against her. (Derived from Webster Street Partnership v. Sheridan (n.d.).)