Chambers v. Dunmyer Chevrolet Co.
58 N.E.2d 239, 29 Ohio Op. 362, 74 Ohio App. 235 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minor may disaffirm a contract for the purchase of a chattel that is not a necessary, and upon disaffirmance, the minor is entitled to a refund of the full purchase price, even if the item has depreciated in value due to its use.
Facts:
- On November 21, 1941, Chambers, then eighteen years of age, purchased a Ford coach automobile from Dunmyer Chevrolet Company for $203.85.
- Chambers paid for the automobile by transferring an old car valued at $30 and paying the balance of $173.85 in cash; Dunmyer Chevrolet Company did not inquire about or receive misrepresentation regarding Chambers' age.
- Immediately after purchase, Chambers noticed a rod coming loose, and the car became disrepaired, leading to Dunmyer Chevrolet Company repairing it without cost to Chambers.
- Later, the car again became disrepaired, and at a Sandusky garage, Chambers paid $59 for repairs after Dunmyer Chevrolet Company refused to pay for the work.
- Subsequently, Chambers was informed that the rods were again failing and the crankshaft needed grinding; Dunmyer Chevrolet Company refused to have anything further to do with the car, regarding it as 'so much junk.'
- Chambers left the car at the Sandusky garage and notified Dunmyer Chevrolet Company that he would have it towed to Fremont if they would refund the purchase price.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 14, 1942, Chambers commenced an action against Dunmyer Chevrolet Company in the Court of Common Pleas, alleging minority and rescission of the contract, seeking $203.85.
- Dunmyer Chevrolet Company filed an amended answer denying Chambers' allegations and an amended cross-petition alleging depreciation due to Chambers' negligence and seeking damages or abatement for the car's use.
- A jury was waived, and the action was tried to the Court of Common Pleas.
- On February 27, 1943, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed Chambers' petition and rendered judgment for Dunmyer Chevrolet Company for costs.
- On March 9, 1943, Chambers' motion for a new trial was overruled.
- On March 25, 1943, Chambers filed notice of appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals on questions of law.
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, upon disaffirming a contract for the purchase of an automobile that is not deemed a necessary, have the legal right to a full refund of the purchase price, regardless of the vehicle's depreciation in value?
Opinions:
Majority - Lloyd, J.
Yes, a minor, upon disaffirming a contract for the purchase of an automobile that is not deemed a necessary, has the legal right to a full refund of the purchase price, regardless of the vehicle's depreciation in value. The court found that Chambers, being a minor at the time of purchase and at the time of the action, had the legal right to disaffirm the contract of purchase. The defendant's claim that the automobile was a 'necessary' because it was used for commuting to and from work was rejected, both because it was not properly pleaded and because, even if pleaded, an automobile purchased for business or convenience is not considered a 'necessary' under the law. For an item to be a 'necessary,' it must be essential to the bodily or mental needs of the plaintiff, not for business purposes. Thus, the contract was subject to disaffirmance. The court also implied that the minor was not required to return the item in its original condition or compensate for its depreciation, especially given the defendant’s refusal to engage with the depreciated vehicle, stating that 'the law does not require the doing by plaintiff of a vain thing.' The court cited Schoenung v. Gallet, Admx. and Wallace v. Leroy in support of the principle that such a contract is subject to disaffirmance.
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the common law principle that contracts entered into by minors for non-necessaries are voidable at the minor's option, providing robust protection for minors. It clarifies that an item's utility for a minor's employment or convenience does not elevate it to the status of a 'necessary' unless it is truly essential for bodily or mental needs. The ruling places the risk of such transactions squarely on the adult party, who has the burden to ascertain a buyer's age, and prevents sellers from demanding compensation for depreciation or use upon a minor's disaffirmance. This decision acts as a significant deterrent to entering into non-essential contracts with minors.
