Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

First Circuit Affirms Unjust Impairment and Termination Claims Against John Deere, Citing Its Failure to Provide Access to Necessary Training and Prior History of Accepting Late Payments
Posted in Terminations

The First Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court’s denial of John Deere’s post-trial motions for a new trial or for judgment as a matter of law in its favor. Casco, Inc. v. John Deere Const. & Forestry Co., 900 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2021). Casco was a reseller of Deere construction equipment in Puerto Rico pursuant to an agreement Casco entered into with Deere in 1986. In 2012, Deere canceled a purchase order from Casco for an excavator that Casco had sold to a construction company. In 2013, Deere terminated the agreement with Casco citing past-due payments and various other defaults. Casco filed suit in federal court in Puerto Rico alleging unjust impairment under Puerto Rico’s Dealer Protection Act based on Deere’s cancellation of the 2012 purchase order, and also alleging unjust termination of the agreement. The jury found for Casco on both claims. Deere filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law on the termination claim and a motion for a new trial on both claims. The district court denied both motions.

In its opinion, the First Circuit affirmed both rulings. Regarding the unjust impairment claim, the court found that, even though Casco’s employees had not completed all the required training to be authorized to sell excavators, the jury had been presented with enough evidence showing Deere had not adequately provided access to said training. Because the jury properly weighed the competing evidence, it was reasonable that they could have come to such a conclusion. Concerning the unjust termination, the jury was presented with evidence of previous instances where Deere had overlooked late payments and the fact that timely payment was not expressly listed in the “Essential Obligation” section of the agreement, as well as evidence that Deere was not happy Casco had developed a relationship with a Deere competitor. The First Circuit concluded that based on such facts, the jury reasonably found that termination of the agreement based on late payments was unjust.

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