Brief - Dodson v Shrader PDF

Preview

Summary

brief; glover ...

Description

Avoiding Enforcement_Minority

Madden Dodson v. Shrader (1992) FACTS

Substantive facts: - In April of 1987, Dodson, then 16, purchased a used 1984 pick-up truck from the Shrader’s, who owned and operated an auto sales business. - Dodson used borrowed money from his girlfriend’s grandmother amounting to $4,900. - At the time of the purchase, there was no inquiry into his age nor was there any misrepresentation by Mr. Dodson concerning his age. - Mr. Shrader did testify that he thought he was 18 or 19 years old. - Nine months later, the truck developed some mechanical problems. A mechanic diagnosed it with a burnt valve but he could not be certain without doing more work ~ Dodson neither had the money nor wanted that work to be done. - Dodson continued to drive the truck despite the mechanical problem. - One month later, the truck’s engine blew up and the truck became inoperable. - Dodson parked the truck in front of his parents house and contacted the Shraders to rescind the purchase of the truck and requested a full refund. While parked at his parents house, the truck suffered from a hit and run accident and was damaged. Now, the truck was only worth about $500. - The Shrader’s refused to accept the tender of the truck or to give him the refund requested. Procedural facts: - Dodson filed action in general session court seeking to rescind the k and recover the amount paid for the truck. - The general sessions court dismissed the warrant and Dodson perfected a de novo appeal to the circuit court. - Through counsel, Mr. Shrader declined to accept the tender of the truck without compensation for its depreciation. - The circuit court, under stare decisis, reluctantly granted the rescission. Shrader’s were ordered upon tender and delivery of the truck to reimburse the $4900 purchase price to Mr. Dodson. - Court of appeals affirmed. - This appeal followed. ISSUE ON APPEAL: Whether the minor is entitled to a full refund of the money he paid or whether the seller’s entitled to a setof for the decrease in value of the pickup truck while it was in the possession of the minor?

TREATMENT: Speight’s Argument: Rule(s):

Application/Rationale: Majority Rule:

Avoiding Enforcement_Minority Madden - That when the court can pronounce the k to be good to the infant’s prejudice, it is void, and when to his benefit, as for necessaries, it is good; and when the k is for an uncertain nature, as to benefit or prejudice, it is voidable only, at the election of the infant. - the underlying purpose of the infancy doctrine is to protect minors from their lack of judgment and from squandering their wealth through improvident contracts with crafty adults who would take advantage of them in the marketplace. Modern trend = two minority rules = balance the rights of minors against those of innocent merchants. Minority Rule #1: - benefit Rule – upon rescission, recover of the full purchase price is subject to a deduction for the minor’s use of the merchandise. This rule recognizes that the traditional rule in regard to necessaries has been extended so far as to hold an infant bound by his contracts, 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. Minority Rule #2: - The minor’s recovery of the full purchase price is subject to a deduction from the minor’s “use” of the consideration he or she received under the k, or for the “depreciation” or deterioration of the consideration in his or her possession. - Minors are assuming more responsibilities in their daily lives, they are emancipated, married, raising families, committing crimes, being held responsible for acts of negligence or tortious conduct, they are engaged in business and acting in most respects as adults;

Conclusion: We are convinced that a modified form of the Oregon rule should be adopted in this state - Where the minor has not bee overreached in any way, and there has been no undue influence, and the k is a fair and reasonable one, and the minor has actually paid money on the purchase price, and taken and used the article purchased, that he ought not to be permitted to recover the amount actually paid, without allowing the vendor of the goods reasonable compensation for the use of, depreciation, and willful or negligent damage to the article purchased, while in his hands. If there has been any fraud or imposition on the part of the seller or if the k is unfair, or any unfair advantage has been taken of the minor inducing him to make the purchase, then the rule does not apply. o This rule fully an fairly protects the minor against injustice or imposition and at the same time is fair to a business person who has dealt with such minor in good faith. o It seems intolerably burdensome for everyone concerned if merchants and business people cannot deal with them safely, in a fair and reasonable way. o It will have a moral influence upon young people: teaching them to encourage honesty and integrity or lead them to a good and useful business future if they are taught that they can make purchase with their own money, for their own benefit, and after paying for them, and using them until they are worn out or destroyed, go back and compel the vendor to return to them what they have paid upon the purchase price. An opposite doctrine would encourage trickery and corruption amongst young people. Application of the new rule: - ∏ was informed of the probable nature of the difficult which apparently involved internal problems in the engine. He continued to drive the vehicle until the engine blew up and the truck became inoperable. Disposition: Remanded.

Avoiding Enforcement_Minority

Madden...