Bowling v. Sperry
|Bowling v. Sperry|
|Court||Appellate Court of Indiana|
|Citation||184 N.E.2d 901|
|Date decided||September 10, 1962|
Bowling was an un-emancipated 16-year-old with a summer job about 9 miles away from his home. He was a minor (below the age of 18). To get to his job, he usually bummed a ride with another employee.
Bowling & 2 adult family members went to Max Sperry (defendant) where Bowling agreed to buy a 1947 Plymouth hot rod for $140.00.
On a pleasure drive, Bowling noticed that the car's main bearing was worn out. Upon learning that he would need to spend $95 to repair the car, Bowling returned the car to the dealership & dis-affirmed the contract.Sperry refused to refund $140 to Bowling.
Bowling filed a suit against Sperry (car dealer) in an Indiana trial court.Bowling lost in the trial court.
The infancy doctrine allows an un-emancipated minor to dis-affirm a contract. The minor is entitled to a refund.
However, if the purchased item is a necessary item, then the minor may not dis-affirm the contract.Necessity is the defense to the infancy doctrine.