| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Dodge v. Freedman's Savings and Trust Company was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between a bank and a customer was valid. The plaintiff, Dodge, had deposited money in the defendant bank, Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, and had signed a contract that stated that the bank could not pay out the money without the customer's written consent. The bank had paid out the money without Dodge's written consent, and Dodge sued the bank for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Dodge and the bank was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was in writing and was signed by both parties. The Court also held that the bank was liable for breach of contract because it had paid out the money without Dodge's written consent. The Court further held that the bank was liable for damages, as Dodge had suffered a loss due to the bank's breach of contract. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the contract between Dodge and the bank was valid and enforceable, and that the bank was liable for breach of contract and damages.
In Dodge v. Freedman's Savings and Trust Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of a state law prohibiting contracts with minors. The majority opinion held that such contracts were voidable at the option of the minor, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that since there was no evidence that either party knew or should have known about the existence of such a law when they entered into their agreement, it would be unfair to allow one party to take advantage of an ignorance which he himself shared by setting aside their contract on account of its illegality. Furthermore, he contended that allowing minors to repudiate any agreements they make without consequence would lead them into temptation and encourage them to enter into transactions which are not beneficial for themselves or society as whole.