Kiefer v. Fred Howe Motors, Inc.
39 Wis. 2d 20, 158 N.W.2d 288 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A contract with a minor for a non-necessary item is voidable at the minor's option, a right that is not defeated by the minor's emancipated status. To hold a minor liable in tort for misrepresentation of age, a party must prove the minor acted with an intent to defraud and that the party's reliance on the misrepresentation was justifiable.
Facts:
- Steven Kiefer, a minor under the age of 21, was married and the father of a child.
- Kiefer was employed and needed transportation for work.
- He purchased a car from a car dealership.
- During the purchase, Kiefer signed a contract that included a printed clause stating, 'I represent that I am 21 years of age or over.'
- Subsequently, Kiefer sought to return the car.
- Kiefer's attorney sent a letter to the dealership indicating Kiefer's intent to disaffirm the contract.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Kiefer, the plaintiff, sued the car dealership in the trial court to disaffirm the purchase contract and recover the money he had paid.
- The trial court found in favor of Kiefer, concluding that the contract was properly disaffirmed and that there was no actionable misrepresentation.
- The car dealership, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to this court.
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 an emancipated minor, under the age of majority, have the legal right to disaffirm a contract for a non-necessary item, and can the seller prevail on a tort claim for misrepresentation without proving intent to defraud and justifiable reliance?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkie, J.
Yes, an emancipated minor has the right to disaffirm a contract for a non-necessary item, and a seller cannot prevail on a misrepresentation claim without meeting the strict requirements of the tort. The long-standing common law 'infancy doctrine' holds that contracts of a minor, other than for necessaries, are voidable at their option to protect them from their own immaturity and from exploitation. This rule is not affected by the minor's status as emancipated; marriage does not automatically grant a minor the wisdom or maturity to be bound by all contracts. The court reasoned that any change to this deeply rooted public policy should be made by the legislature, not the judiciary. Regarding the misrepresentation claim, the court found two essential elements of the tort were missing. First, there was no evidence of 'scienter,' or an intent to defraud the dealer. Second, the dealer's reliance on the pre-printed contract clause was not justifiable; the dealer could have easily asked for a driver's license or other identification to verify Kiefer's age, especially since the trial court noted he looked immature.
Dissenting - Hallows, C. J.
No, an emancipated minor in modern society should be held legally responsible for his contracts. The common-law rule is outdated and fails to recognize the realities of modern life. A minor who is mature enough to marry, become a parent, or serve in the military is mature enough to make a binding contract in the marketplace; the age of twenty-one is an arbitrary limit. Furthermore, the dissent argues that for a working father like Kiefer, an automobile is a 'necessity' required to earn a living, making the contract non-voidable on that ground as well.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the traditional infancy doctrine, emphasizing that emancipation through marriage or employment does not strip a minor of the right to disaffirm contracts. The court's decision signals a policy of judicial restraint, deferring to the legislature for any significant changes to the age of majority for contracting. The ruling also clarifies the high burden of proof for a claim of misrepresentation against a minor, requiring clear evidence of intent to deceive and demonstrating that a seller's blind reliance on a boilerplate contract clause is not 'justifiable.' This places a greater due diligence burden on merchants who contract with individuals who may be minors.
