Dodson v. Shrader Facts I.

April 1987: a. Joseph Dodson, 16 years old, bought used 1984 truck off of Ds i. Ds owned/operated Shrader s Auto Sales in Columbia, TN b. P paid $4900 in cash, borrowing money from GFs grandmother i. Ds did not inquire of P s age, nor did P misrepresent his age ii. Mr. Shrader testified that at the time he believed P was 18/19 c. Dec 1987, 9 MOs after P bought the truck, began developing problems i. Diagnosed as burnt valve ii. P didn t have money to repair kept driving it d. January 1988, engine blew i. P parked truck in front yard @ parent s hosue ii. Asked Ds for a full refund & to rescind purchase 1. Ds refused Procedural History I. P filed an action in general sessions court seeking to rescind the K and recover amount paid for the truck II. Court dismissed the warrant and P perfected a de novo appeal to circuit court a. Through counsel, D declined to accept the tender of the truck without compensation for its depreciation b. Before circuit court could hear case, truck was struck by hit-&-run driver c. At trial, D claimed truck was worth only $500 due to damage to the engine and the left front fender III. November 1988 a. Trial judge, based on CL decisions, granted the rescission b. Ds ordered to reimburse the $4,900 i. Ds appealed Issue Whether a minor is entitled to a full refund otf the money he paid or whether the seller is entitled to a setoff for the decrease in value of the pick-up truck while it was in the possession of the minor Holding Reasoning I. Underlying purpose of the infancy doctrine is to protect minors from their lack of judgment and from squandering their wealth through improvident Ks with cracty adults who would take advantage of them in the marketplace II. 2 Minority rules have developed a. Benefit Rule: Upon rescission, recovery of the full purchase price is subject to a deduction for the minor s use of the merchandise. i. Recognizes that the traditional rule in regard to necessaries has been extended so far as to hold an infant bound by his Ks, where he failed to restore what he has received under them to the extent of the benefit

actually derived by him from what he has received from the other party to the transaction b. Whether this involved gross negligence or intentional conduct on his part is a matter for determination at the trial level Judgment Remanded to the TC for further proceedings in accordance with judgment.III. then the rule does not apply b. while in his hands i. Where the minor has not been overreached in any way. or for the depreciation or deterioration of the consideration in his or her possession Court adopted a modified form of the Oregon Rule a. and the minor has actually paid money on the purchase price. and taken and used the article purchased. Any fraud or imposition on the part of the seller or if the K is unfair. and willful or negligent damage to the article purchase. and the K is a fair and reasonable one. that he ought not to be permitted to recover the amount actually paid without allowing the vendor of the goods reasonable compensation of rhe use of. Oregon Rule: Minor s recovery of the full purchase price is subject to a deduction for the minor s use of the consideration he or she received under the K. and there has been no undue influence. depreciation. Costs on appellate review are assessed equally between the parties . or any unfair advantage has been taken of the minor inducing him to make the purchase.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful