Sharp Furniture, Inc. v. Buckstaff – Necessaries
Sharp Furniture, Inc. v. Buckstaff, 99 Wis. 2d. 114, 299 N.W.2d 219 (1980).
NATURE OF THE CASE: Appellant, debtor’s husband, sought review of a judgment in favor of respondent retailer in respondent’s action against appellant and debtor to recover the cost of a sofa purchased on credit by debtor, the Appellant’s wife.
FACTS: Ms. Buckstaff (D) signed a special order with Sharpe Furniture, Inc. (P) for a sofa whereby she agreed to pay $621.50 within 60 days after receiving the sofa from the factory. Interest at a rate of 1.5 percent per month was charged on the unpaid balance after the 60 day period. Mrs. Buckstaff made no representations to Sharpe Furniture that she was acting on behalf of her husband in purchasing the furniture. Mr. Buckstaff had previously written to the local credit bureau service to notify that office that he would not be responsible for any credit extended to his wife.
The sofa was delivered to the residence of the defendants in February 1974 and remained a part of the home from the time of its delivery even though no one ever tendered payment. Sharpe Furniture sued the Buckstaffs and the trial court found that Ms. Buckstaff was liable on her contract and that John Buckstaff was also liable for the amount due under the common law doctrine of necessaries. The court of appeals affirmed and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted cert.
ISSUE: 1) Under the common law doctrine of necessaries and in the absence of any contractual obligation on his part, may a husband be held liable for necessary items purchased on credit by his wife? 2) What must the plaintiff-creditor prove in an action for recovery of the value of necessaries supplied on credit to a wife?
RULE OF LAW: 1) Yes. Under the common law doctrine of necessaries and in the absence of any contractual obligation on his part, a husband may be held liable to pay for necessary items purchased on credit by his wife. 2) In an action for recovery of the value of necessaries supplied on credit to a wife, it is essential for the plaintiff-creditor to prove either that the husband has failed, refused or neglected to provide the items which have been supplied by the plaintiff-creditor, or that the items supplied were reasonably needed by the wife or the family.
HOLDING AND DECISION (Beilfuss): Under the common law rule of necessaries a husband has a legal obligation to support his wife and nothing but wrongful conduct on her part can free him from such obligation. If he fails to provide her with suitable and proper necessaries, any third person who does provide her with such necessaries may maintain an action against him.
Necessaries are such articles of food, apparel, medicine, medical attendance and nursing, means of transportation, habitation and furniture, or such provision for her protection in society, and the like, as the husband, considering his ability and standing, ought to furnish to his wife for her sustenance and the preservation of her health and comfort. This doctrine traditionally required the creditor to show that he supplied to the wife an item that was, in fact, a necessary and that the defendant had previously failed or refused to provide his wife with this item. If the creditor made his showing he was entitled to recovery as against the husband despite the fact that the husband had not contractually bound himself by his own act or by the act of an agent. This duty is placed upon a husband by virtue of the legal relationship of marriage and arises as an obligation placed on him as a matter of public policy.
The sustenance of the family unit is accorded a high order of importance in the scheme of Wisconsin law. It has been codified as a part of our statutes and recognized as a part of our case law. We view the nature of the husband’s liability as a contractual duty implied in law, i.e., a quasi-contractual obligation. When an item or service is obtained for the benefit of the family, which is necessary, and no payment for that item or service has been made, the elements of an action for an implied-in-law contract exist and the husband is primarily liable.
The creditor need only show that the item was reasonably needed by the wife or family and not that the husband wilfully refused to provide his wife with the necessary item. We have reviewed the stipulation of the parties in this matter and we are satisfied that ample evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that the Henredon sofa was a legally necessary item. The sofa has been in use in the Buckstaff home since its delivery. Such continued use gives rise to an inference of reasonable need.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
CONCURRING (Abrahamson): I do not agree with that portion of the opinion in which the court adopts a rule placing primary liability on the husband to the creditor for necessaries supplied to the family. If the common law doctrine of necessaries is to survive as a rule of law it must be modified in accordance with the developing laws recognizing equal rights and responsibilities of both marital partners and the changes in the economic and social conditions of society. The common law doctrine of necessaries was premised on the legal disability of the married woman and on the husband’s duty to support. Today, the married woman is free to contract, and the duty of support rests not on the husband alone but on both the husband and wife.
The rule that a husband is primarily liable for necessities is not in harmony with the legislatively established public policy of this state which is to impose the obligation to support on both the husband and wife on the basis of their respective economic resources and not on one spouse or the other on the basis of gender. This rule discriminates against men and thus contravenes the state and federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection of law.