Story Case

Howard Taylor, a young man of eighteen years of age, ran a little grocery store in Peoria. As his business was increasing very rapidly he decided to get a horse and delivery wagon. He bought the horse from Richard Lacey, who knew he was a minor but made no objection on that account. He continued in business for about five years after he came of age, using the horse in the business all this time. Eventually he decided that he would go out of business. He returned the horse to Lacey, and demanded the return of the purchase money, saying that he had elected to disaffirm the contract which had been made while he was an infant. Lacey refused to accept the horse, or to refund the money and Taylor brought an action to recover it. Should Taylor recover under these circumstances?

Ruling Court Case. Green Vs. Wilding, Volume 59 Iowa Reports, Page 679; Volume 44 American Reports, Page 696

In 1869, C. H. Barton died, owning a large amount of land. He left a widow, Rebecca Barton, and two children, Charles B. Barton, and the plaintiff, who married Green. In 1872, Rebecca, the plaintiff, and Charles sold the land in question to the defendant for $800. At the time of this conveyance the plaintiff was only thirteen or fourteen years of age, and her brother Charles was even younger. When she was nearly twenty-five years old, or four years after attaining majority, the plaintiff brought this action to recover her interest in the property, which she had conveyed as a minor.

Decision: An infant may disaffirm a contract or act upon becoming of age. But unless he exercises this right then, or within a reasonable time thereafter, the right is lost. In this case no reason appears why a delay of four years was made before the plaintiff attempted to disaffirm the sale of her property. Accordingly the Court was of opinion that the plaintiff had waited an unreasonable length of time to disaffirm, and the right was gone. Judgment should be given for the defendant.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Upon becoming of age, or as soon thereafter as possible, an infant should repudiate all contracts and acts made or done during minority. If an unreasonable length of time elapses after attaining majority before repudiation the right may be lost. This is fair, for otherwise an infant might wait for an indefinite length of time, hoping to take advantage of his voidable acts and contracts.

In the Story Case, the Court would hold that the infant had waited an unreasonable length of time to avoid the contract. He used the horse for several years after he had reached his majority without evidencing any intention to repudiate the obligation.