Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Court Denies Manufacturer's Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Regarding an Unauthorized Transfer of Dealership
Posted in Transfers

A federal court in Maryland recently denied a truck manufacturer’s motion to dismiss its dealer’s counterclaims in an action regarding the unauthorized transfer of a dealership. In Paccar Inc. d/b/a Peterbilt Motors Company v. Elliot Wilson Capitol Trucks LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166962 (D. Md. Nov. 21, 2012), Peterbilt filed suit alleging that Elliot Wilson had materially breached its dealer agreement by selling rights to the dealership without prior approval. Elliot Wilson responded by filing counterclaims alleging that Peterbilt was aware of the potential sale and that, by refusing its approval, Peterbilt had failed to act in good faith in violation of various statutes. The dealer also claimed the supplier had breached the dealer agreement because it failed to make its “best efforts” to approve the proposed transfer. Elliot Wilson alleged eleven different instances of Peterbilt’s misconduct, and Peterbilt argued that ten of those instances were not pled sufficiently to survive a motion to dismiss. The court declined to dismiss the allegations of bad faith, noting that even one unchallenged instance of misconduct, if pled in a sufficiently specific and plausible manner, would be enough to prevent dismissal. The court did caution, however, that these claims could succeed at trial only if Elliot Wilson could demonstrate that Peterbilt violated a contractual provision or a statute, or was responsible for tortious conduct.

The court also found plausible Elliot Wilson’s claim for breach of the dealer agreement based on Peterbilt’s failure to use its best efforts to approve the proposed transfer. The court interpreted the agreement as including an obligation that Peterbilt not unreasonably reject a proposed transfer. This meant that the supplier still could reject any proposal that it deemed unacceptable as a rational business matter. The court found, however, that Elliot Wilson had plausibly alleged that Peterbilt improperly rejected the proposed transfer because of its insistence that the business be transferred to its preferred buyer. Furthermore, the court found that Elliot Wilson had sufficiently alleged a claim for tortious interference with contract because Peterbilt’s preferred buyer had exerted influence on Peterbilt to ignore or reject Elliot Wilson’s proposed transfers.

Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.

About this Publication

The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP. 

To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here

Topics

Archives

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors