Connection lost
Server error
DODSON BY DODSON v. SHRADER Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A minor bought a truck, used it until it broke down, then sought to disaffirm the contract for a full refund. The court abandoned the traditional rule, holding that the seller could offset the refund by the truck’s depreciation while in the minor’s possession.
Legal Significance: This case marks a significant departure from the traditional infancy doctrine. It establishes a modern rule balancing a minor’s right to disaffirm with a good-faith merchant’s right to be compensated for the depreciation or damage to goods caused by the minor.
DODSON BY DODSON v. SHRADER Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Joseph Dodson, a 16-year-old, purchased a used pickup truck from the Shraders for $4,900 cash. Dodson did not misrepresent his age, and the Shraders believed him to be 18 or 19. Nine months after the purchase, the truck developed a burnt valve. Dodson continued to operate the vehicle for another month until the engine failed completely, rendering the truck inoperable. Dodson then sought to disaffirm the contract and demanded a full refund of the purchase price, which the Shraders refused. While the inoperable truck was parked at Dodson’s residence, it was damaged in a hit-and-run accident. By the time of trial, the truck’s value had diminished to approximately $500. The lower courts, adhering to existing precedent, ordered a full refund upon tender of the damaged truck. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to reconsider the state’s rule on a minor’s power of disaffirmance.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: When a minor disaffirms a contract that was fair and not the result of overreaching, is the vendor entitled to a setoff from the purchase price for the depreciation in value of the goods while in the minor’s possession?
Yes. The court reversed and remanded, holding that a minor’s recovery upon Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillu
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
When a minor disaffirms a contract that was fair and not the result of overreaching, is the vendor entitled to a setoff from the purchase price for the depreciation in value of the goods while in the minor’s possession?
Conclusion
This decision establishes a significant modern exception to the traditional infancy doctrine, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris ni
Legal Rule
Where a minor has not been overreached, the contract is fair and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint
Legal Analysis
The Tennessee Supreme Court departed from the traditional infancy doctrine, which permitted Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A 16-year-old sought to disaffirm a contract for a truck after
