HARTMAN AUTO SALES, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, TRADING AND DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF HARTMAN CYCLE CENTER, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH JAYE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A minor purchased a motorcycle from an automobile dealer and later sought to rescind the contract. The trial court found the minor had truthfully disclosed his age and that the motorcycle was not a necessity, allowing rescission. The appellate court affirmed, holding that minors may disaffirm contracts except for necessities, and the evidence supported the trial court's factual findings.
A minor may disaffirm a contract for the purchase of a vehicle when the vehicle is not a necessity and the minor has truthfully disclosed his age. The trial court's factual findings that the minor disclosed his correct age and that the vehicle was not a necessity (as the minor possessed other means of transportation) are supported by the evidence and control the legal outcome.
“the trial court expressly found as a matter of fact that the plaintiff had not misstated his age to the defendant at the time of the purchase, but rather that plaintiff had advised the defendant of his correct age”
Establishes the critical factual finding that defeats the defendant's affirmative defense and supports the minor's right to rescind
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee Jaye, who was under twenty-one years of age at the time of purchase, bought a motor vehicle from appellant Hartman Auto Sales and traded in a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Distinguishing Precedent cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant automobile dealer seeks review of a final order entered by the trial court in an action for recision of a contract whereunder appellee purchased a motor vehicle from said defendant.
The complaint for recision alleged that at the time of the purchase the plaintiff was not yet twenty-one years of age, and that he had advised the defendant at the time of the purchase that he was under twenty-one years of age; further, the complaint alleges that while still a minor, plaintiff disaffirmed the contract, tendering the vehicle in return, but the defendant refused to accept it. Shortly thereafter and while he was still under twenty-one years of age, plaintiff, through his attorneys, made demand on defendant for return of his money and the Honda motorcycle which he had traded in as part of the purchase price.
By his answer, defendant contended that the plaintiff had falsely stated his age to be twenty-one years at the time of the purchase and that such statement was falsely made and had the effect of inducing defendant to enter into the transaction sought to be rescinded. Additionally, defendant’s answer contends that the vehicle purchased by the plaintiff was a necessary; and, therefore, the contract for its purchase did not fall within the rule under which a minor may avoid his contracts on the grounds of such minority.
After final hearing and the taking of evidence, the trial court expressly found as a matter of fact that the plaintiff had not misstated his age to the defendant at the time of the purchase, but rather that plaintiff had advised the defendant of his correct age and entered the judgment appealed in favor of the plaintiff.
We have reviewed the evidence considered by the trial judge and find that it amply sustains his finding of fact respecting plaintiff’s age as well as the holding inherent in the judgment that the vehicle was not a necessary as to this plaintiff inasmuch as at the time he possessed other means of transportation.
It is contended by appellant that this case is controlled by the principles enunciated in Rose v. Sheehan Buick, Inc., 204 So.2d 903 (Fla.App.3d, 1967). However, the case sub judice is clearly distinguishable from Rose, supra, for the reason that the trial court there found that the vendor had been led into believing that the purchaser was of legal age; and, further, that the car was a necessary for that purchaser. The opposite factual conclusions were reached in the case at bar.
The other points raised by appellant have been considered, and we find them to be without substantial merit.
Our consideration of the record, briefs, and oral arguments in this case fails to show that the court below committed reversible error in entering the judgment appealed and the same is therefore
Affirmed.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leigh v. CAR Circus, 35 Fla. Supp. 69 (Broward Cty. Cir. Ct. 1970)…Insurance Company v. Conley, Fla., 152 So. 2d 521, citing Putnal v. Walker, supra; Rose v. Sheehan Buick, Inc., Fla., 204 So. 2d 903, in which there was a finding that the minor’s car was a necessity for him; Hartman Auto Sales, Inc. v. Jaye, Fla., 214 So. 2d 97; 17 Fla. Jur., Infants §17 et seq.; 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Infants §104; 12 ALR3d Infant-Sale-Use or Depreciation, p. 1178 II §3. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the contract entered into be and the same is hereby rescinded and that judgment be…
-
Hartman Auto Sales, Inc. v. Jaye, 225 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 214 So. 2d 97.…
-
Gen. Aviation Corp. v. Elliott, 305 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…as a minor, and in this case, he raised as an affirmative defense his disaffirmance of the contract on the basis of his minority. See Sparr v. Florida Southern Ry. Co., 25 Fla. 185, 6 So. 60 (1889) and Hartman Auto Sales, Inc. v. Jaye, Fla.App.1968, 214 So. 2d 97. We agree with the trial court that the pleadings, deposition and affidavit on file affirmatively show that there is no genuine issue of material fact upon the third party claim and that the appellee was entitled to the summary final judgment as a…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kendrick v. State, 204 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967)