Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Semmens v. Floyd Rice Ford, Inc.
Citations: 136 N.W.2d 704; 1 Mich. App. 395; 1965 Mich. App. LEXIS 233Docket: Docket 97
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals; September 20, 1965; Michigan; State Appellate Court
George W. Knieser purchased a 1952 Ford from Floyd Rice Ford, Inc. on March 19, 1960, while he was 19 years old. Following an accident on October 23, 1960, where the vehicle was driven by Thomas Daniel Clark with Knieser's permission, Knieser's decedent was fatally injured. After reaching the age of 22, Knieser attempted to rescind the sale through a letter to the dealer on February 19, 1963, demanding a refund. Subsequently, on April 11, 1963, a lawsuit was initiated by the plaintiff, claiming that the defendant owned the vehicle at the time of the accident. The defendant sought summary judgment, asserting non-ownership of the vehicle during the relevant time. The plaintiff conceded that no factual dispute existed but argued that state public policy holds automobile dealers liable when a minor purchaser or authorized operator causes injury. The trial court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff's legal argument relied on the doctrine that a minor can disaffirm a contract upon reaching the age of majority, potentially rendering the sale void ab initio, supported by previous case law. However, the court found that while minors may disaffirm contracts, the cited cases do not explicitly state that such contracts are void from the outset. The plaintiff also referenced the applicability of common law principles in Michigan, as established by the state's 1908 Constitution, which maintains existing laws unless altered or repealed. Common law recognizes that agreements involving minors can be classified as void, voidable, or valid depending on their nature, with the purchase of the vehicle being categorized as voidable under Michigan law. The document addresses the legal principles surrounding contracts made by minors (infants). It establishes that a minor has the right to disaffirm a contract, rendering it void ab initio, which means the contract is treated as if it never existed, restoring the parties to their original positions. The text notes that while minors cannot be bound by contracts to their detriment, contracts that benefit them may be binding or voidable at their discretion upon reaching the age of majority. This modern interpretation allows minors to determine the validity of contracts based on their interests when they become adults. The principle that an executed voidable contract remains valid until disaffirmed is affirmed, with specific reference to Michigan law. The case of Parks v. Pere Marquette Railway Co. illustrates that a minor can own and be responsible for an automobile if they possess sufficient age and judgment. Additionally, the annotation in Casey v. Kastel clarifies that the disaffirmance of a contract does not retroactively invalidate actions taken before disaffirmance, distinguishing between void and voidable contracts. In the current case, the court concluded that the defendant did not own the vehicle at the time of the accident, warranting summary judgment for the defendant and reversing the lower court's decision, with costs awarded to the appellant.