Facts
- Steven Kiefer, age 20, married, employed, and a father, bought a 1960 Willys station wagon from Fred Howe Motors, Inc. for $412 and took possession.
- The written contract included a clause stating Kiefer represented he was “21 years of age or over” and that the dealer sold the vehicle on that representation.
- After the sale, the vehicle developed serious mechanical problems, allegedly including a cracked engine block.
- Kiefer sought to return the vehicle and obtain an adjustment; the dealer refused.
- Through counsel, Kiefer notified the dealer he was under 21 at purchase, declared the contract void, tendered return of the automobile, and demanded repayment of the purchase price.
- The dealer did not refund the money, and Kiefer sued to recover the $412.
- Wisconsin’s age of majority was 21 at the time, and the transaction did not involve “necessaries.”
Issues
- Whether an emancipated minor over age 18 is legally responsible for non-necessaries contracts such that disaffirmance is unavailable.
- Whether Kiefer effectively disaffirmed the purchase contract.
- Whether Kiefer was liable in tort for misrepresentation based on the contract’s age statement.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed judgment for Kiefer.
- The court refused to create a judicial rule binding emancipated minors over 18 to non-necessaries contracts; the traditional minor-disaffirmance rule remained controlling.
- The court held Kiefer effectively disaffirmed by giving notice, tendering return of the car, and demanding repayment within a reasonable time.
- The court rejected the dealer’s tort theory because the record did not establish actionable fraud or justifiable reliance sufficient to impose misrepresentation liability.
Legal Principles
- A minor’s contract, other than for necessaries, is voidable at the minor’s option.
- Emancipation does not, by itself, remove a minor’s power to disaffirm non-necessaries contracts.
- Broad changes to contractual capacity based on age are primarily legislative policy choices, not judicial line-drawing in an individual case.
- A seller may not avoid the minor-protection rule by recasting the dispute as tort misrepresentation absent proof of the elements of fraud, including justifiable reliance.
Conclusion
The court held that a 20-year-old, even if married and self-supporting, could disaffirm a non-necessaries automobile purchase and obtain restitution upon tender of the vehicle, and that a boilerplate age representation did not, on these facts, support tort liability that would defeat disaffirmance.