A federal court in Ohio partially granted a manufacturer's motion to dismiss certain claims in a suit challenging the termination of a distribution agreement brought by one of its former dealers. Palmer-Donavin Manufacturing Co. v. Rheem Sales Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82993 (S.D. Ohio June 18, 2014). Palmer-Donavin had been a dealer of the manufacturer Rheem's heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment for more than forty years pursuant to a series of written distribution agreements, the last of which had expired in 2009. After 2009, they had continued their relationship through Rheem's approval of Palmer-Donavin's yearly sales plan. The complaint alleged that, after the written contract had lapsed, Rheem convinced Palmer-Donavin to take various actions to promote its products and discontinue the sale of any of its competitor's HVAC equipment, based on the understanding that the relationship would continue. Nonetheless, without Palmer-Donavin's knowledge, Rheem entered into discussions with a different distributor and eventually terminated its relationship with PalmerDonavin in early 2013. Palmer-Donavin brought claims for breach of a written contract, breach of an oral agreement, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent misrepresentation, among others. Rheem moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
The court denied the motion as to some of the claims. It held that the lapsed written agreement, which permitted Rheem to terminate the relationship at any time, no longer governed the relationship between the parties. Although expired written commercial contracts are generally enforced if the parties continue to act according to their terms, the court noted that these parties had significantly altered their positions by moving from a nonexclusive to an exclusive distribution relationship. Thus, it concluded that they were no longer operating under the expired written agreement, but instead had formed a series of new contracts evidenced by their agreed-to annual sales plans. Since the new agreements arguably prohibited Rheem from terminating the relationship before the end of the calendar year, the court rejected Rheem's attempt to dismiss Palmer-Donavin's breach of contracts claims. The court also kept Palmer-Donavin's promissory estoppel claim alive because it sufficiently alleged that it had taken various actions in reliance on explicit assurances from one of Rheem's employees that the relationship would not be terminated. The court did dismiss Palmer-Donavin's claim for breach of a fiduciary duty because, although close and long-lasting, the parties relationship was essentially "arm's-length." Similarly, the court dismissed Palmer-Donavin's claim for negligent misrepresentation because the parties had not been in the kind of "special relationship" that such claims require.
Maisa Frank represents clients in a variety of litigation matters. Whether conducting pre-dispute investigations, navigating litigation, or negotiating resolutions, Maisa’s advice and strategy is vital to clients facing ...
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.