Reliable Volkswagen Sales & Service Co. v. World-Wide Automobile Corp.

216 F. Supp. 141, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10305, 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,751
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedApril 11, 1963
DocketCiv. A. 132-59 and 554-60
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 216 F. Supp. 141 (Reliable Volkswagen Sales & Service Co. v. World-Wide Automobile Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Reliable Volkswagen Sales & Service Co. v. World-Wide Automobile Corp., 216 F. Supp. 141, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10305, 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,751 (D.N.J. 1963).

Opinion

WORTENDYKE, District Judge.

Plaintiff filed two actions of a similar nature against the defendants; one in the Southern District of New York, and one in this District. The former having been transferred to this Court, the two *142 eases were consolidated for trial, on June 30, 1960. Among the various causes of action alleged, one (Count 3) is predicated upon the Automobile Dealer Franchise Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1221 et seq. At a supplementary pretrial conference held on February 11, 1963, attended by all counsel and the Court, it was decided to submit for determination, prior to trial, the issue of whether or not plaintiff is entitled to rely upon the cited statutory sections; the critical question being the existence vel non of a “franchise” as defined by the terms of the Act.

Plaintiff, Reliable Volkswagen Sales & Service Company, Inc. (hereinafter Reliable) is a corporation of the State of Connecticut, with its principal place of business in the City of Bridgeport. It is engaged in the retail sales of various types of motor vehicles, and parts thereof, of foreign manufacture. Plaintiff was incorporated on January 24, 1956, the date of filing of the certificate of incorporation, for the purpose of engaging “in the manufacture, sale and distribution of automobiles, motor cars, motor trucks and other mechanically propelled vehicles * * * more particularly that automobile known as VOLKSWAGEN,” and “to engage in the repair and servicing of automobiles, motor cars, motor trucks and other mechanically propelled vehicles and more particularly the repair and servicing of that certain automobile known as VOLKSWAGEN.” On May 16, 1956, the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles approved a license for the sale of Volks-wagens by one of plaintiff’s officers, Lawrence Oliver, d/b/a Reliable Volkswagen Sales Inc. A letter dated January 13, 1956, from World-Wide Automobile Corp. certifying Reliable Motor Sales Incorporated as a dealer was submitted to the Dealers and Repairers Section (presumably of the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles). 1 The letter referred to concluded with: “This letter of authorization in no way constitutes a franchise agreement between the above-named dealer and World-Wide Automobiles Corporation.”

The defendant Volkswagenwerk G.m. b.H. (hereinafter VW), is a corporation of the German Federal Republic, engaged in the manufacture of Volkswagen automobiles and parts for the same, at Wolfsburg, West Germany. VW originally imported its products into the United States of America for sale therein; but later effected such importation through a subsidiary, which it caused to be organized under the laws of the State of New York, known as Volkswagen United States, Inc. (hereinafter VUS). More recently, VW caused to be organized, under the laws of the State of New Jersey, another subsidiary corporation known as Volkswagen of America, Inc. (hereinafter VOA), having a principal place of business at Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, which the complaint alleges, supervised the distribution of Volkswagen automobiles and parts in the United States, in behalf of VW. Volkswagen automobiles and parts for the same are sold in commerce between West Germany and the United States of America, and among the several States of the latter.

The defendant World-Wide Automobile Corp. (hereinafter W-W), a New York State corporation, with a place of business in Long Island City, handles the distribution, within the States of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, of Volkswagen vehicles and parts manufactured by VW and imported and sold by and through VOA and VUS.

The defendants Fifth Avenue Motors, Inc. and Queensboro Motors Corp., both New York corporations, are retail dealers handling VW products in Manhattan and Long Island City, New York, and *143 they obtain their merchandise through W-W.

The individual defendants, Dillon and Stanton, are officers and directors of W-W, Fifth Avenue and Queensboro.

Count 3 of the complaint alleges that in or about April 1954 “plaintiff and defendant World-Wide entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff was designated as the duly authorized retail dealer in the City of Bridgeport, State of Connecticut, of Volkswagen automobiles, trucks, accessories and parts, to be supplied and furnished to plaintiff by defendant World-Wide.” (Emphasis supplied.) The third count further recites that plaintiff received vehicles from defendants from January 1, 1955 to January 1, 1957, and that on or about January 1st, 1956 the defendants agreed to sell to plaintiff a minimum of 30 Volks-wagenwerk manufactured products per month on the condition that plaintiff enlarge, expand and rebuild his show-room and allied facilities. Plaintiff charges that by reason of the foregoing it was an automobile dealer within the terms of the Act and that the “agreement of franchise” heretofore alleged “purported to and did fix the legal rights and liabilities of the respective parties thereto in regard to the distribution, sale and servicing of motor vehicles and parts * *.” Finally, this cause of action states that defendants, acting in an unfair manner, cancelled and refused to carry out the contracts and agreement pursuant to which defendants had appointed and constituted plaintiff an authorized dealer, by reason of which plaintiff suffered damage.

The narrow question here presented to the Court by stipulation of all of the parties, is whether or not a “franchise” existed within the definition set forth in the Act; it being agreed that, if none is found, the third cause of action must fall. 2 The statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1221, itself defines the word as follows: “(b) The term ‘franchise’ shall mean the written agreement or contract between any automobile manufacturer engaged in commerce and any automobile dealer which purports to fix the legal rights and liabilities of the parties to such agreement or contract.”

If a definition of a word used is given in a statute the statutory definition is controlling. Otherwise the word will be given its common ordinary meaning. Von Weise v. Commissioner, etc., 8 Cir., 1934, 69 F.2d 439, cert. den. 292 U.S. 655, 54 S.Ct. 866, 78 L.Ed. 1504; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 1944, 323 U.S. 490, 65 S.Ct. 335, 89 L.Ed. 414; National Labor Relations Board v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 1956, 350 U.S. 264, 76 S.Ct. 383, 100 L.Ed. 285; Addison v. Holly Hill Co., 1944, 322 U.S. 607, 64 S.Ct. 1215, 88 L.Ed. 1488.

It is conceded by plaintiff that it never entered into a franchise agreement of a formal nature, similar to those generally in use in the automobile industry in this country.

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

Related

H&M Bay, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation
New Jersey Tax Court, 2023
Gassett v. Nissan N.A., Inc.
877 F. Supp. 974 (Virgin Islands, 1994)
O'NEAL v. General Motors Corp.
841 F. Supp. 391 (M.D. Florida, 1993)
Pomco Graphics, Inc. v. Director
13 N.J. Tax 578 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1993)
Warrior Coal Co., Inc. v. Connors
649 F. Supp. 1090 (W.D. Virginia, 1986)
Schomber v. Prudential Ins. Co.
518 A.2d 1138 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1986)
Car Business, Inc. v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Indiana, Inc.
492 N.E.2d 488 (Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, 1985)
Meltzer v. Zoller
520 F. Supp. 847 (D. New Jersey, 1981)
Joe Westbrook, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp.
419 F. Supp. 824 (N.D. Georgia, 1976)
Smith-Johnson Motor Corp. v. Hoffman Motors Corp.
411 F. Supp. 670 (E.D. Virginia, 1975)
DeCantis v. Mid-Atlantic Toyota Distributors, Inc.
371 F. Supp. 1238 (E.D. Virginia, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
216 F. Supp. 141, 1963 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10305, 1963 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reliable-volkswagen-sales-service-co-v-world-wide-automobile-corp-njd-1963.