Minson Plymouth, Inc., a Virginia Corporation v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

Fourth Circuit

Minson Plymouth, Inc., a Virginia Corporation v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

554 F.2d 1266, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14039

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 31, 1977

Docket75-2312

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 554 F.2d 1266 (Minson Plymouth, Inc., a Virginia Corporation v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Minson Plymouth, Inc., a Virginia Corporation v. Chrysler Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, 554 F.2d 1266, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14039 (4th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In February of 1971 the plaintiff Minson Plymouth, Inc., commenced business as a Plymouth automobile dealer in Hopewell, *1267 Virginia, under a Direct Dealer Agreement with the defendant Chrysler Motors Corporation. The dealership progressed reasonably well until February of 1973 when George Minson, the President and Manager of the plaintiff corporation, was advised by a physician that he had a serious heart condition and should get out of the automobile business. Thereafter, Minson attempted to effect a “concurrent termination” of the dealership by selling it as a going business to a buyer who would be approved by Chrysler. Minson sought to negotiate such a sale, but in June of 1973 was advised by Chrysler that it no longer desired to continue a dealership in Hopewell selling only Plymouth products. Contending that Chrysler’s conduct violated the Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1221-1225 as well as Virginia Code § 13.-1-564, Minson instituted this action. At the conclusion of the evidence the district court directed a verdict in favor of Chrysler and Minson has appealed.

It is now well settled that in the absence of coercion, intimidation or threats thereof, there can be no recovery under the federal statute. Fray Chevrolet Sales, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 536 F.2d 683 (6 Cir. 1976); Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Import Motors Ltd., 519 F.2d 119 (6 Cir. 1975). Since the termination was initiated by Minson, we agree with the district judge that Chrysler’s decision to discontinue a “Plymouth only” dealership in Hopewell was not violative of the day-in-court Act. Counsel for the plaintiff concedes that the scope of the Virginia statute is no broader than the federal Act and, accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

In February of 1971 the plaintiff Minson Plymouth, Inc., commenced business as a Plymouth automobile dealer in Hopewell, *1267 Virginia, under a Direct Dealer Agreement with the defendant Chrysler Motors Corporation. The dealership progressed reasonably well until February of 1973 when George Minson, the President and Manager of the plaintiff corporation, was advised by a physician that he had a serious heart condition and should get out of the automobile business. Thereafter, Minson attempted to effect a “concurrent termination” of the dealership by selling it as a going business to a buyer who would be approved by Chrysler. Minson sought to negotiate such a sale, but in June of 1973 was advised by Chrysler that it no longer desired to continue a dealership in Hopewell selling only Plymouth products. Contending that Chrysler’s conduct violated the Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1221-1225 as well as Virginia Code § 13.-1-564, Minson instituted this action. At the conclusion of the evidence the district court directed a verdict in favor of Chrysler and Minson has appealed.

It is now well settled that in the absence of coercion, intimidation or threats thereof, there can be no recovery under the federal statute. Fray Chevrolet Sales, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 536 F.2d 683 (6 Cir. 1976); Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Import Motors Ltd., 519 F.2d 119 (6 Cir. 1975). Since the termination was initiated by Minson, we agree with the district judge that Chrysler’s decision to discontinue a “Plymouth only” dealership in Hopewell was not violative of the day-in-court Act. Counsel for the plaintiff concedes that the scope of the Virginia statute is no broader than the federal Act and, accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Eastern Auto Distributors, Inc. v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, and Automobiles Peugeot, Societe Anonyme Regie Par Les Articles, a French Corporation And/or Entity, Eastern Auto Distributors, Inc. v. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, and Automobiles Peugeot, Societe Anonyme Regie Par Les Articles, a French Corporation And/or Entity

795 F.2d 329 (Fourth Circuit, 1986)

Cabriolet Porsche Audi, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

773 F.2d 1193 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)

Cabriolet Porsche Audi, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co.

773 F.2d 1193 (Eleventh Circuit, 1985)

Frank Meador Buick, Inc. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (In Re Frank Meador Buick, Inc.)

13 B.R. 841 (W.D. Virginia, 1981)

Bob Maxfield, Inc. v. American Motors Corp.

637 F.2d 1033 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)

Bob Maxfield, Inc., D/B/A Bob Maxfield American, and William Fraker and Aileen Fraker, Plaintiffs-Cross v. American Motors Corporation, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs- Appellees-Cross v. James R. Maxfield, Iii, Third Party Defendants-Appellants-Cross

637 F.2d 1033 (Third Circuit, 1981)

Francis Chevrolet Company v. General Motors Corporation

602 F.2d 227 (Eighth Circuit, 1979)

Chinetti-Garthwaite Imports, Inc. v. Ferrari Societa Per Azioni Esercizio Fabbriche Automobili E Corse

463 F. Supp. 73 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 F.2d 1266, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minson-plymouth-inc-a-virginia-corporation-v-chrysler-motors-ca4-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack