## Facts

- A sixteen-year-old buyer purchased a used 1947 Plymouth from an automobile dealer for $140 cash, paying $50 down and $90 two days later.
- The dealer issued a written receipt stating the car was sold to the minor for $140 “cash, paid in full,” and delivered a certificate of title in the minor’s name.
- The minor was accompanied by his aunt and grandmother; the aunt loaned him $90 used to complete the payment, but the dealer treated the minor as the purchaser.
- About a week after taking possession, the minor discovered serious engine damage and returned the car to the dealer’s lot after being told repairs would cost $45 to $95.
- The minor refused to pay for repairs, left the car at the lot, sent a letter disaffirming the contract, and demanded return of the $140.
- The dealer refused to refund the purchase price.

## Issues

1. Whether a minor may disaffirm a contract to purchase an automobile and recover the purchase price without first restoring the seller to the status quo or tendering back the property as a precondition to suit.
2. Whether adult relatives’ presence and partial provision of funds affected the minor’s right to disaffirm.
3. Whether the automobile was a “necessary” such that disaffirmance would be limited.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for the dealer.
- The court held the minor effectively disaffirmed and was entitled to recover the $140 purchase price.
- The court held Indiana law does not require a minor, as a condition of disaffirmance, to place the adult in statu quo or to tender back consideration before suing.
- The relatives’ involvement did not alter the legal character of the transaction as the minor’s contract.
- The dealer failed to prove the automobile was a necessary for the minor.

## Legal Principles

- A minor’s contract for personal property is voidable at the minor’s election and may be disaffirmed during minority or within a reasonable time after reaching majority.
- In Indiana, disaffirmance does not require the minor to restore the adult party to the status quo or to tender back property or money received before filing suit.
- Adult assistance or financing does not bar disaffirmance when the contract documents and the parties’ conduct show the minor is the contracting party.
- The seller bears the burden to prove goods are “necessaries” suited to the minor’s condition and actual needs; without such proof, the necessaries exception does not apply.

## Conclusion

The court held that the minor’s automobile purchase was voidable and properly disaffirmed, that prior tender or restoration was not required, that relatives’ involvement did not defeat the infancy defense, and that the dealer did not prove the car was a necessary, entitling the minor to recover the full purchase price.


Bowling v. Sperry, 184 N.E.2d 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 1962)