Bowling v. Sperry

Court of Appeals of Indiana
133 Ind. App. 692, 184 N.E.2d 901 (1962)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Contracts made by a minor are voidable and can be disaffirmed, unless the contract is for necessaries. An automobile is not considered a necessary if the minor has other adequate means of transportation.

Facts:

Larry Bowling, a sixteen-year-old minor, purchased a 1947 Plymouth automobile from Max E. Sperry, a car dealer, for $140 cash.
Bowling was accompanied by his grandmother and aunt when he selected the car, and his aunt provided $90 of the purchase price as a loan.
The written receipt for the sale was made out in Bowling's name alone.
Within a week of the purchase, Bowling discovered the car's main bearing was burned out.
Bowling returned the car to Sperry's lot, declined to pay for the necessary repairs, and left the vehicle there.
Bowling subsequently sent a letter to Sperry disaffirming the contract and demanding a full refund of the $140 purchase price.
At the time of the purchase, Bowling lived with his grandmother and had a summer job eight or nine miles away, to which he typically received rides from a coworker or others.

Procedural Posture:

Larry Bowling, through his next friend, filed a civil action against Max E. Sperry in the Noble Circuit Court (a trial court) to disaffirm the contract.
The trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the appellee, Max E. Sperry.
The appellant, Larry Bowling, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court of Indiana.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a minor have the right to disaffirm a contract for the purchase of an automobile that is not a necessary for his support and well-being?

Opinions:

Majority - Myers, J.

Yes, a minor has the right to disaffirm a contract for the purchase of an automobile that is not a necessary. The long-standing rule in Indiana is that a minor's contracts are voidable and may be disaffirmed at any time during minority. The court reasoned that the presence and financial assistance of Bowling's relatives did not alter the fact that the contract was solely between the minor and the adult seller, who was aware of Bowling's age. The only exception to a minor's right to disaffirm is for contracts for 'necessaries'—items essential for the minor's existence, such as food, lodging, or medical care. The burden is on the seller to prove the item was a necessary. Here, the automobile was not a necessary because Bowling had other means of transportation to his job and primarily used the car for pleasure. Therefore, the contract was voidable, and Bowling was entitled to the return of his money, regardless of the car's subsequent mechanical failure.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the strong common law principle of protecting minors from improvident contracts by granting them the power to disaffirm. It clarifies that the 'necessaries' doctrine is narrowly construed and places a high burden of proof on the adult party seeking to enforce the contract. The ruling establishes that an automobile is not a per se necessary, and its classification depends on the minor's specific circumstances, such as their actual need and available alternatives. This precedent reinforces the risk that vendors assume when contracting with minors for non-essential goods.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bowling v. Sperry (1962)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature