Bowling V Sperry

454 Words2 Pages
Citation: Bowling v. Sperry, 133 Ind.App. 692, 184 N.E.2d 901. Parties: Larry Bowling, Plaintiff-Appellant Max. E. Sperry, Defendant-Appellee Facts: Larry was a minor, 16 years of age. On June 29, 1957 he purchased, from Appellee, a 1947 Plymouth automobile for the sum of $140. He paid $50 down that day and returned July 1, 1957, to pay the balance of $90 and take possession of the car. The Appellee delivered a certificate of title and written receipt. The receipt stated that as of June 29, 1957, Max Sperry Ford sales sold to Larry Bowling, a 1947 Plymouth for the amount of $140, cash, paid in full. After a week of driving the car around, he discovered that the main bearing was out. He brought it back to the appellee's place of business, where he was informed it would cost between $45 and $95 to make repairs. He declined to pay this amount and left the vehicle on the appellee's lot. He then sent a letter to the appellee to the effect that he disaffirmed the contract of purchase and demanded his money back. Upon appellee's refusal to pay back the $140, this lawsuit followed. Prior: Upon trial of the case by the court, judgement was rendered in favor of appellee and against Larry Bowling. Larry appealed the judgment of the trial court. Issue: Is the automobile deemed to be a "necessity" to the minor, Larry Bowling? Holding: No. The automobile is not considered a necessity to the minor. Therefore the appellee does not have an enforceable contract with the appellant, a minor. Reasoning: As it has been stated in 27 Am.Jur., Infants, ァ 17, pp. 760, 761, "[w]hat are or what are not necessaries for an infant depends on what is reasonably necessary for the proper and suitable maintenance of the infant in view of his social position and and situtation in life . . . These necessaties to be procured by the contract must be personal

More about Bowling V Sperry

Open Document