Mitchell v. Mizerski

In December 1989, Travis Mitchell, a 16-year-old, took his car to mechanic Mark Mizerski (defendant) for repairs. Mizerski provided an estimate and let Travis know that a $1,000 deposit would be required prior to the start of the repairs. In April 1990, Travis took the car to Mizerski along with a cashier’s check for $1,000 for the deposit. Later, Travis and his father, Ted Mitchell (plaintiff), went to Mizerski’s shop to see how the repairs were progressing and to authorize more work. In July, Travis and his father visited Mizerski’s shop again. Ted and Mizerski argued over the amount due but settled on a particular amount. When Travis picked up the car after the repairs were complete, he paid the amount due with another cashier’s check from an account that belonged to his parents. Not long after, the car was taken back to Mizerski twice to fix cracks in the paint. Then, in 1991, Travis took the car to Mizerski to fix spots where the paint was chipped, and Travis paid the agreed-on price. The following month, Travis and his father sent a letter to Mizerski complaining about the quality of his work and asking how Mizerski intended to handle the matter. Mizerski did not respond to the letter. Ted then filed a lawsuit on Travis’s behalf in which, based on Travis’s status as a minor, Travis sought disaffirmance of both the contract for the initial repairs and the second contract for the repair of the chipped paint. Mizerski asserted that his work on Travis’s car did not constitute a contract with Travis alone but with Ted as well. Car repairs were not considered necessaries. A trial court ruled that Mizerski had entered into a contract with Travis, a minor, and not with his father. A district court affirmed. Mizerski appealed.