Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Wisconsin Supreme Court - 298 N.W.2d 562
Tags: Contracts, Infancy doctrine
tl;dr:
A Defendant sold a car to a minor. The minor was making payments on the car, but then it broke down and Plaintiff wanted to void the agreement under the infancy doctrine. Defendant refused to restore the minor's consideration for the broken-down car.Video Summary
Case Summary
In Halbman v. Lemke (1980), the Wisconsin Supreme Court addressed a case involving a minor's disaffirmance of a contract. The case centered on James Halbman, Jr., a minor who bought a car from Michael Lemke, a gas station manager. Before fully paying for the car, it broke down, requiring costly repairs. Halbman returned the title to Lemke, disaffirmed the contract, and demanded a refund. Lemke refused, claiming he deserved restitution for the car's use and depreciation.
The court ruled in Halbman's favor, holding that a minor disaffirming a non-necessity item contract can recover the purchase price without liability for use, depreciation, damage, or other value reduction, unless they misrepresented their age or caused tortious damage. The court reasoned this rule aligned with the policy of protecting minors from their own improvidence and adult overreaching.
This case is significant as it demonstrates the application of the infancy doctrine, allowing minors to void contracts under specific conditions. It also showcases how courts balance minors' and adults' interests in contractual disputes and interpret the concept of necessity concerning minors' contracts. The case is relevant for those dealing with contracts involving minors, such as sellers, buyers, parents, guardians, or lawyers.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The case involves a minor who disaffirmed a contract for a non-necessary vehicle after paying $1,000 cash and taking possession of the car. The engine broke five weeks later, and the minor incurred a repair cost of $637.40, which he did not pay. The minor demanded the return of all money paid and disaffirmed the purchase contract. The vendor did not return the money, and the vehicle was left in a garage where it was vandalized and became unsalvageable. The issue is whether the minor must make restitution to the vendor for damage sustained by the vehicle prior to the disaffirmation of the contract. The Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering whether a minor who disaffirms a contract for a non-necessary item and returns the property to the vendor must make restitution for any damage to the property prior to the disaffirmance. The trial court ruled in favor of the minor, stating that a minor who disaffirms a contract for the purchase of an item only needs to offer to return the remaining property without making restitution for any use or depreciation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on restitution for depreciation but reversed on the question of prejudgment interest. The doctrine of incapacity or the "infancy doctrine" is settled law in Wisconsin, which gives minors the absolute right to disaffirm contracts for non-necessary items.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.