Sharpe Furniture, Inc. v. Buckstaff
19 A.L.R. 4th 421, 299 N.W.2d 219, 99 Wis. 2d 114 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the common law doctrine of necessaries, a husband is primarily liable for necessary items purchased by his wife for the family. A creditor is not required to prove that the husband failed or refused to provide the item, but only that the item was suitable for the family's station in life and was reasonably needed at the time of purchase.
Facts:
- John D. Buckstaff, Jr., president of a company and a man of substantial income, wrote to the local credit bureau advising that he would not be responsible for any credit extended to his wife, Karen Buckstaff.
- On August 15, 1973, Karen Buckstaff, a housewife, ordered a sofa from Sharpe Furniture, Inc. on credit, signing the special order in her own name.
- At the time of purchase, no representation was made to Sharpe Furniture that Karen was acting as an agent for her husband.
- The Buckstaff family was one of social and economic prominence in the Oshkosh area.
- John Buckstaff has always provided his wife with the necessaries of life.
- On February 8, 1974, the sofa was delivered to the Buckstaff residence.
- The sofa has been used continuously in the Buckstaff home since its delivery.
- Neither John nor Karen Buckstaff ever paid for the sofa.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharpe Furniture, Inc. commenced an action against John and Karen Buckstaff in the circuit court for Winnebago county.
- The parties submitted the case to the trial court on an agreed-upon stipulation of facts.
- The trial court entered a judgment finding both Karen and John Buckstaff liable for the purchase price of the sofa.
- John Buckstaff, as appellant, appealed the judgment against him to the court of appeals, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted John Buckstaff's petition to review the decision of the court of appeals.
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 the common law doctrine of necessaries make a husband liable for a necessary item purchased on credit by his wife, even when the husband has not expressly contracted for the item and has not failed or refused to provide his wife with necessaries?
Opinions:
Majority - Beilfuss, C. J.
Yes. A husband is liable for necessaries purchased by his wife under the common law doctrine of necessaries, which creates a quasi-contractual obligation implied in law to ensure the sustenance of the family. The doctrine serves a legitimate public policy purpose of encouraging the extension of credit to families. Following the precedent in Simpson Garment Co. v. Schultz, a creditor need not prove the husband failed or refused to provide the necessary item. Instead, the creditor must only show that the item was (1) suitable for the family's social and financial position and (2) reasonably needed by the family. Here, the sofa was suitable for the Buckstaffs' prominent status, and its continuous use in their home created an unrebutted inference of reasonable need.
Concurring - Abrahamson, J.
Yes. While the husband is liable on the specific facts of this case under the traditional doctrine of necessaries, the majority errs by creating a broad, gender-based rule making the husband primarily liable in all cases. Such a rule is out of step with modern statutes that place the duty of support on both spouses based on their respective economic resources. This gender-based classification is likely unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clauses of the state and federal constitutions, as it discriminates against men. The court should have resolved this case on its narrow facts rather than announcing a new, constitutionally suspect rule.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the doctrine of necessaries but modernizes its application by adopting a creditor-friendly standard of proof that focuses on 'reasonable need' rather than the husband's failure to provide. By classifying the husband's obligation as primary and quasi-contractual, the court solidifies a legal fiction to hold a non-contracting party liable for public policy reasons. However, the concurrence highlights the significant constitutional vulnerability of this gender-based rule, foreshadowing future legal challenges and the eventual evolution of the doctrine toward a gender-neutral standard based on the spouses' relative financial abilities.
