Opinion

Teegardin v. Foley

  • 166 Ohio St. (N.S.) 449
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 26, 1957
Status
Published
Author
Bell
On the bench
Bell, Herbert, Matthias, Stewart, Taet, Weygandt, Zlmmerman
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Bell, J.,

dissenting. It appears to me that the desired prevention of evils and the protection needed for the buying public are amply accomplished by the disclosure provisions of Sections 1317.02 and 1317.04, Revised Code.

Although in these days of increasing governmental control over private business it may be considered old-fashioned, I adhere to the fundamental proposition that a person should be allowed to dispose of his own personal property on whatever *466 terms and under whatever conditions he and a person with whom he freely contracts may agree upon so long as those terms and conditions do not unlawfully invade the rights of others. The disclosure provisions of the Retail Installment Sales Act, in my opinion, obviate the necessity of imposing further controls on the disposition of personal property.

Stewart, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.