Crabtree Automotive, Inc. v. BMW of North America

105 A.D.2d 825, 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1198, 482 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20949
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 26, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 825 (Crabtree Automotive, Inc. v. BMW of North America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Crabtree Automotive, Inc. v. BMW of North America, 105 A.D.2d 825, 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1198, 482 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20949 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

In action to compel specific [826]*826performance of an alleged oral agreement made by defendant BMW of North America Limited (BMW) to approve a sale of a BMW dealership by defendant Pace Oldsmobile, Inc., to plaintiff, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), entered May 23, 1984, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the cross motion of BMW to dismiss the complaint.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The oral agreement by defendant BMW, allegedly made with plaintiff, to approve a sale of the BMW dealership owned by defendant Pace to plaintiff was unenforceable (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-201; see Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., 74 AD2d 258). We agree with Special Term that the conceptual differences between the granting of an original franchise and the consent by the franchiser to the transfer of a franchise to another are without legal substance insofar as section 2-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code is concerned (see Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., supra). Both necessarily involve an agreement to purchase goods for the price of $500 or more. This is particularly so where a provision of the dealership agreement relating to transfer of the dealership was to the effect that upon BMW’s approval of a transfer it would offer the transferee the right to enter into a new agreement involving the purchase of goods in “the same form as the Agreement then currently offered by BMWNA to its Dealers”. Boyers, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jackson v. ITT Corporation
221 A.D.2d 237 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
United Beer Distributing Co. v. Hiram Walker Inc.
163 A.D.2d 79 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Wallach Marine Corp. v. Donzi Marine Corp.
675 F. Supp. 838 (S.D. New York, 1987)
Country-Wide Leasing Corp. v. Subaru of America, Inc.
133 A.D.2d 735 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Lighting Horizons, Inc. v. E. A. Kahn & Co.
120 A.D.2d 648 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 A.D.2d 825, 39 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1198, 482 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20949, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crabtree-automotive-inc-v-bmw-of-north-america-nyappdiv-1984.