299 N.W.2d 219 (Wis. 1980)
In August 1973, Karen Buckstaff purchased a Henredon 6800 sofa from Sharpe Furniture, Inc., a Wisconsin retail furniture corporation, by signing a special order in her own name for $621.50 payable within sixty days of delivery, with interest accruing thereafter.1 No statement was made to the seller that she was acting on behalf of her husband, John D. Buckstaff, Jr.2
John Buckstaff had previously notified the local credit bureau that he would not be responsible for any credit extended to his wife.3 The sofa was delivered to the Buckstaff residence on February 8, 1974, and has remained in use there continuously.4 Neither John nor Karen Buckstaff made any payment for the sofa.5
On November 20, 1975, Sharpe Furniture commenced an action against both Buckstaffs seeking payment.6 The parties stipulated to the facts and submitted the matter to the trial court on memoranda.7 The stipulation established that John Buckstaff was president of Buckstaff Company with substantial income, that the family enjoyed social and economic prominence in Oshkosh, and that John had always provided his wife with necessaries of life.8
The trial court entered judgment against Karen Buckstaff on her contract and against John Buckstaff under the doctrine of necessaries.9 The court of appeals affirmed the judgment.10 Karen Buckstaff did not appeal, but John Buckstaff sought review in the Wisconsin Supreme Court.11
Whether, under the common law doctrine of necessaries and in the absence of any contractual obligation on his part, a husband may be held liable for sums due as payment for necessary items purchased on credit by his wife?12
The common law doctrine of necessaries imposes a primary obligation, implied as a matter of law in the absence of an express contract to the contrary, upon the husband to assume liability for necessaries procured for the sustenance of the family.13
Yes. The doctrine applies to the facts established in this record.14 Karen Buckstaff purchased the Henredon sofa on credit for the family residence.15 The sofa was delivered to the Buckstaff home and has remained in continuous use there.
The family's social and economic prominence in the community supports the conclusion that the sofa qualifies as a suitable necessary.16 The benefit was conferred upon and retained by the family without payment, satisfying the elements of unjust enrichment that give rise to the implied-in-law contractual duty.17
John Buckstaff is liable for the sums due on the sofa under the doctrine of necessaries.18
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Abrahamson joins the court in retaining the doctrine of necessaries and imposing liability on Mr. Buckstaff for the cost of the sofa.19 She does not agree with the portion of the opinion adopting a rule placing primary liability on the husband to the creditor for necessaries supplied to the family.20 She believes the rule is not in harmony with the legislatively established public policy imposing the obligation to support on both spouses based on their respective economic resources.21
The rule also discriminates against men in violation of equal protection guarantees under the state and federal constitutions.22
Whether, 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?23
A creditor seeking recovery under the doctrine of necessaries must prove that the articles sold were reasonably needed by the wife or family member in light of the family's social position and the husband's financial ability.24 The creditor need not prove that the husband wilfully refused or neglected to provide the items.25
No. The creditor need not prove refusal or neglect by the husband.26 The parties' stipulation that John Buckstaff has always provided necessaries is not probative of whether the particular sofa was reasonably needed.27 The sofa satisfies the reasonable-need element because it has been in continuous use in the Buckstaff home since delivery, and the family's prominence confirms that the item was suitable for their household.28
The creditor is not required to prove refusal or neglect, and the evidence of reasonable need is sufficient to support liability.29