A "joint adventure" is often defined as an association of two or more persons to carry out a single business enterprise for profit. See Howard v. Winebrenner, 499 S.W.2d 389, 396 (Mo. 1973); Jeff-Cole Quarries, Inc. v. Bell, 454 S.W.2d 5, 15 (Mo. 1970); Bell v. Green, 423 S.W.2d 724, 731 (Mo. banc 1968); Pigg v. Bridges, 352 S.W.2d 28, 33 (Mo. banc 1961). As a general rule in order to constitute a joint venture there must be a mutual right of control.

These two phrases, however, differ in that "reason to know" implies no duty of knowledge on the part of the actor whereas "should know" implies that the actor owes another the duty of ascertaining the fact in question.See Bell v. Green, 423 S.W.2d 724 (Mo. banc 1968); Dinger v. Burnham, 360 Mo. 465, 228 S.W.2d 696 (1950); Stafford v. Far-Go Van Lines, Inc., 485 S.W.2d 481 (Mo.App. 1972); Thomasson v. Winsett, 310 S.W.2d 33 (Mo.App. 1958); Lix v. Gastian, 261 S.W.2d 497 (Mo.App. 1953). III.

The trial court did so on the ground that plaintiff, a 19-year-old minor, was incapacitated to contract with defendant Govero, and could not be a member of a joint venture. This Court so held in 1968 in Bell v. Green, Mo.Sup., 423 S.W.2d 724, 731. Defendant Kreitler's proffered amendment to his answer which was stricken stated:

EAGER, Judge. This action for personal injuries arises out of the same automobile collision as did the case of Bell v. Green and Fruehauf Trailer Company, Mo., 423 S.W.2d 724, and the same parties are defendants. Our opinion in that case is filed concurrently with this opinion. The collision was between a car operated by one Becker and a tractor-trailer of defendant Fruehauf; for all practical purposes the car was owned by Green, who was a rear seat passenger.

Proof of a joint venture requires evidence of a community of interest in a common purpose, mutual right of control, right to share in profits and a duty to share in losses. Bell v. Green, 423 S.W.2d 724, 731 (Mo. 1968). A principal/agent relationship is established by showing manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his own behalf, and subject to his control, and consent by the others so to act.

Where infancy, fraud, or other legal impediment negates a contractual agreement a joint venture cannot exist. See Bell v. Green, 423 S.W.2d 724, 731 (Mo. 1968) (infancy). "The existence of a different type of express contract is in itself inconsistent with a claimed relationship of a joint venture by implication."

One who supplies directly or through a third person a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others whom the supplier should expect to share in or be endangered by its use, is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them. This section of the Restatement was adopted in Stafford v. Far-Go Van Lines, Inc., 485 S.W.2d 481 (Mo.App. 1972), and was cited with favor by the Missouri Supreme Court in Bell v. Green, 423 S.W.2d 724, 732 (Mo. 1968) (en banc). Accord, Collins v. Arkansas Cement Co., 453 F.2d 512, 514 (8th Cir. 1972) (Arkansas law).

In its brief plaintiff states that the "rules governing minors, deny the minors the right to appoint agents or even to ratify such appointments after they become of age." As authority for this proposition it cites, Bell v. Green, Mo., 423 S.W.2d 724, and Curtis v. Alexander, Mo., 257 S.W. 432. We do not consider the above cited authorities controlling on the issues now before us. At the time the oral binder agreement was entered into young Fields was over 20 years and 10 months old, he was a member of the Armed services, and the owner of an automobile which was to be licensed and operated in the State of Missouri.

A joint venture is in the nature of a partnership, and is governed by the same rules of law, but is usually limited to a single transaction. Bell v. Green, 423 S.W.2d 724, 731 (Mo. 1968). "The rights of joint adventurers are governed by rules applicable to partnerships."

Art. V, § 10. In Bell v. Green, 423 S.W.2d 724, 732 (Mo.banc 1968), this Court spoke of "negligent entrustment" as follows: ". . .