Hunter v. Egolf Motor Co.
268 Ill. App. 1, 1932 Ill. App. LEXIS 104 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minor's contract is voidable at their discretion and can be disaffirmed even if the minor fraudulently misrepresented their age, so long as the misrepresentation was part of the contract formation and not a wholly separate tortious act.
Facts:
- On November 27, 1929, Charles Hunter, a minor under 18, represented to Egolf Motor Company that he was 22 years old.
- Relying on this representation, Egolf Motor Company entered into a contract to sell Hunter an Oldsmobile for $1,141.
- Hunter provided a trade-in Dodge coupe valued at $350, paid $140 in cash, and agreed to pay the remainder in installments.
- Hunter made the first installment payment of $47 on December 24, 1929.
- In January 1930, after the Oldsmobile required repairs, a dispute arose over who should pay for them.
- During the dispute, Hunter revealed he was a minor, disaffirmed the contract, and demanded the return of his trade-in vehicle and cash payment.
- Egolf Motor Company refused to return the consideration and retained the Oldsmobile.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Hunter (plaintiff) filed a suit against Egolf Motor Company (defendant) in a justice of the peace court to recover the consideration paid.
- Egolf Motor Company filed a counterclaim for damages based on the depreciation of the automobile.
- Following a trial in the justice court, the case was appealed to the circuit court of Peoria county, a trial court of general jurisdiction.
- The circuit court conducted a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict for Hunter for $350.
- Egolf Motor Company filed a motion to set aside the verdict, which the circuit court overruled, entering judgment on the verdict.
- Egolf Motor Company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, with Hunter as appellee.
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's fraudulent misrepresentation of his age when entering a contract prevent him from later disaffirming the contract and recovering the consideration he paid?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jett
No. A minor's fraudulent misrepresentation of his age does not estop him from disaffirming a contract. The court reasoned that the law's protection of minors from their contractual improvidence is paramount. While minors are liable for their torts, a fraudulent act that is intrinsically connected to the formation of a contract (ex contractu) cannot be re-characterized as a tort (ex delicto) simply to enforce the contract's obligations against the minor. The court distinguished this situation from one where a fraudulent act is wholly tortious and independent of any contract. Here, Hunter's initial intent was to perform the contract, as evidenced by his payments, meaning the dispute grew out of the contract itself, not a separate tort.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strong common law protection afforded to minors in contract law, establishing that the right to disaffirm is not lost even in the face of the minor's own fraud. It solidifies the distinction between a breach of contract and a pure tort, preventing creditors and vendors from using a minor's misrepresentation as a loophole to enforce an otherwise voidable agreement. The ruling places the onus on businesses to verify the age of their customers, as they bear the risk of a minor's subsequent disaffirmance regardless of the minor's representations.
