## Facts

- James Halbman, Jr., a minor, agreed to buy a used 1968 Oldsmobile from Michael Lemke for $1,250, paying $1,000 upfront and taking possession, with weekly payments to follow.
- After about five weeks and $1,100 total paid, the engine failed (a connecting rod broke).
- Lemke offered limited help installing a used engine if Halbman obtained one at his own expense; Halbman instead had the car repaired at a garage for $637.40, which remained unpaid.
- Lemke endorsed title to Halbman despite the unpaid balance, intending to avoid liability connected to the car’s operation or maintenance.
- Halbman mailed the title back to Lemke and disaffirmed the contract, demanding return of all amounts paid; Lemke refused.
- The garage enforced a garageman’s lien by removing the engine and transmission and towing the vehicle to Halbman’s father’s residence; the vehicle was later vandalized and became unsalvageable.
- Halbman sued to recover $1,100; Lemke counterclaimed for the unpaid $150 balance.

## Issues

1. Whether a minor who disaffirms a contract to purchase a non-necessity must make restitution for damage or depreciation occurring before disaffirmance when the minor tenders back what remains.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the minor.
- The court held the automobile was a non-necessity and the minor validly disaffirmed.
- Halbman was entitled to recover all consideration he paid.
- Halbman’s duty upon disaffirmance was limited to returning only what remained in his possession; he owed no additional restitution for pre-disaffirmance depreciation or damage.
- Because there was no misrepresentation of age or independent tortious conduct by the minor, Lemke could not offset the refund by claiming deterioration losses, and the counterclaim for the unpaid balance was rejected.

## Legal Principles

- A minor may disaffirm a contract for a non-necessary and recover the consideration paid.
- Upon disaffirmance, a minor must restore only such consideration as remains in the minor’s possession at the time of disaffirmance, and no more.
- Absent misrepresentation or independent tortious conduct, a disaffirming minor is not liable for the item’s use, depreciation, or damage occurring before disaffirmance.
- Contracts for necessaries are treated differently; minors may be liable for the reasonable value of necessaries, but that rule does not apply to non-necessities.

## Conclusion

The court applied the traditional infancy doctrine to permit a minor to rescind a non-necessity purchase and obtain a full refund upon tender of what remained, without paying for prior deterioration in the absence of misrepresentation or tortious conduct.


Halbman v. Lemke, 99 Wis. 2d 241, 298 N.W.2d 562 (Wis. 1980)