Story Case

John Newcomb was the owner of a valuable diamond ring. He sold it for a very low price to a friend, Nathan Lane. When the father of Newcomb discovered what his son had done, he went to Lane and demanded the return of the ring. Lane refused to give it. The father brought suit to recover it, alleging that his son was a minor and that a sale of the ring was voidable, and that he, the father, had elected to avoid the sale. Assuming that John had done nothing to avoid the sale, is the father entitled to recover the ring?

Ruling Court Case. Patterson Vs. Lippincott, Volume 47 New Jersey Law Reports, Page 457; Volume 54 American Reports, Page 178

By a contract in writing, Barclay Lippincott, acting as agent for his minor son, George, agreed to purchase from Patterson the exclusive right to use, manufacture and sell the plaintiff's patent, an air heating attachment, in Atlantic County in the State of New Jersey. Not having been paid the purchase price for the patent, the plaintiff brought this action against the defendant, who acted as agent for his son. The plaintiff contended that he was entitled to recover from the father, because the father had acted for an incompetent principal whose contracts were voidable, and that, therefore, the father, as agent, should be liable upon the contract.

Decision: This contract as made by the defendant, acting as agent for his son, was binding upon the son until the son himself avoided it. The right to avoid the contract is personal to the infant while he lives. No one else can exercise that right for him.

Mr. Justice Scudder, who delivered the opinion of the Court, said: "Another answer is that the defense of infancy to this contract with the plaintiff can only be set up by the infant, or those who legally represent him. Infancy is a personal privilege of which no one can take advantage but the infant himself. In this case the plaintiff seeks to disaffirm the infant's contract and sue a third party on the contract, whose authority to bind the infant has not been denied. The contract made by the father is valid, so far as the plaintiff is concerned; the infant was competent to act as principal; he did not avoid the contract, and the plaintiff cannot avoid it."

It was held that this action could not be maintained against the defendant, since he acted for a proper principal.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

The law gives the minor the right to avoid certain contracts as a means of protection to himself. It follows that this right is personal to the infant. So long as the infant is satisfied with the transaction no one else is entitled to complain. As long, therefore, as the minor lives and does not choose to avoid voidable acts and contracts no one else may do so. After his death the right of the minor to avoid rests solely in his personal representative, i. e., in his administrator or executor. In the Story Case, the father of John New-comb could not avoid the contract. This was a right existing in the infant alone.