Dodson Vs. Shrader 824 S.W. 2d 545
Parties of the Case
• Defendant is Shrader
• Plaintiff is Dodson
Case Controversy
• Was the contract voidable to Dodson, and should Dodson receive his money back from Shrader
Facts of the Case
• Defendant is Shrader
• Plaintiff is Dodson
• Dodson was 16 years old
• Dodson paid with borrowed money his girlfriend’s grandmother
• On April 7, 1987 Dodson purchased a truck from plaintiff for $4900
• On December, 1987 during a mechanical check up Dodson was told the engine has a burned valve
• Knowing the truck had mechanical issues Dodson continues to drive truck and in January the engine blows up resulting in non operational
• Dodson sued Shrader in sessions court on May 10,1988
• Shrader’s opt not to return the purchase price of $4900 although Dodson is willing to return the truck
• Truck has a damage due to a hit and run while parked in front of Dodson’s house
• Shrader ask for the difference in value from the purchase and the truck Decision of Case and Why
The Court held that absent any overreaching, fraud, or unfair advantage on the part of the adult seller, a seller is entitled to reasonable compensation for the use of, depreciation, or willful or negligent damage done to goods sold, while such goods are in the minor’s possession. The Court remanded the case to the trial court to make factual determinations of whether there was any overreaching, and if not, to determine whether Plaintiff’s actions of parking the car on the side of the road and failing to get the truck fixed constituted gross negligence on behalf of Plaintiff.
Opinion
Responsibilities should always take part in any scenario even when dealing with minors. They need to take responsibilities for their possessions and actions. Dodson purchased the truck used it and knowing it had mechanical condition he continued to drive the truck, that was more than enough evidence to demonstrate that he did not have the intentions of taking care of his own goods and that reflect on his responsibilities as a person. Had he stopped using the truck and tried to make a deal with Shrader to get the truck fix and taking it back things would have been different. The court ruled that Dodson return the truck in the same conditions it was at the time of purchase in order to receive the $4900 and if not he would have to pay with the $4900. The hit and run the trucks suffered was not Shrader responsibility nor should they have to pay or take in the truck and then repair, it would be unfair. However the biggest error on Shrader side was not confirming the age of the Plaintiff and having him sign a contract without a parental guarantee payment.