ABA Distributors, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co.
Decision Date | 06 July 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 80-0298-CV-W-1.,80-0298-CV-W-1. |
Citation | 542 F. Supp. 1272 |
Parties | ABA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Plaintiff, v. ADOLPH COORS COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Harry P. Thomson, Jr., Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Kent E. Whittaker, Hillix, Brewer, Hoffhaus & Whittaker, Kansas City, Mo., Leo N. Bradley, Bradley, Campbell & Carney, Golden, Colo., for defendant.
This case is before us a second time. The first time the case was considered, this Court granted preliminary injunctive relief. See ABA Distributors, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 496 F.Supp. 1194 (W.D.Mo.1980). On appeal, the Eighth Circuit in ABA Distributors, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 661 F.2d 712 (8th Cir. 1981), dissolved the preliminary injunction granted and remanded the case to this Court suggesting that the parties and Court expedite trial on the merits.
In accordance with that implicit direction of the Court of Appeals, the parties eventually entered into a stipulation in which they agreed that plaintiff's claim for permanent injunctive relief should be presented for this Court's determination on the merits in accordance with procedures agreeable to the parties and approved by the Court. The procedures agreed upon in the stipulation of the parties provided that:
Although the parties stated in paragraph 5 of the stipulation that they were "unable to agree on the questions of law to be presented to the Court for its determination," it is clear that the parties' stated disagreement was more apparent than real. As will be later developed in detail, the parties are in full agreement in regard to the substance of the controlling questions of law presented for decision under the procedures provided in the stipulation; their disagreement relates only to the form and the manner of how those questions should be stated. Paragraph 5 of the stipulation therefore included nine questions of law which ABA submitted for determination,4 and five questions of law which Coors submitted for determination in the same paragraph.5
Paragraph 6 of the stipulation established an agreed time schedule under which proposed findings of fact, proposed conclusions of law and briefs in support and in opposition were to be filed. Paragraph 7 contained the important agreement of the parties that "the parties agree that, except as above stated, neither side wishes to adduce any additional evidence and that all disputed questions of fact shall be decided on the evidence as above stipulated."
The parties are in complete agreement that the first question of law which this Court should decide is "whether the March 21, 1980 notice of termination may be supported by subsequently discovered evidence." The language in which that question of law is stated illustrates the real agreement of the parties in regard to the substance of the legal question presented for determination. The language in which the legal question is stated is quoted from the question of law submitted by ABA in its subparagraph (g), contained in paragraph 5 of the stipulation. Coors, in its subparagraph (a) of paragraph 5 of the stipulation, used exactly the same language to submit the legal question which it proposed should be considered first by this Court. Coors, however, in its separate submission of the identical question of law submitted by ABA, did no more than add a clause to the language submitted by ABA in order that Coors could include its factual argument that the "subsequently discovered evidence," in fact demonstrated "the existence of adequate cause for such termination."
In part III of this memorandum opinion, we shall state the reasons why we have concluded that the March 21, 1980 notice of termination may not be supported by subsequently discovered evidence. In light of that conclusion, it is apparent that the material factual circumstances relating to our determination of the legal questions presented are not in dispute. We will state our findings of fact in the next part of this opinion and will then consider and decide the legal questions submitted by the parties.6
1. Plaintiff ABA distributors, Inc. (ABA) is a Missouri corporation with its principal place of business at 1909 Vernon Street, North Kansas City, Clay County, Missouri.
2. Defendant Adolph Coors Company (Coors) is a Colorado corporation engaged in the business of brewing and selling Coors beer products from its brewery in Golden, Colorado. Coors transacts business and enters into contracts in the Western District of Missouri.
3. ABA has been authorized to do and was doing business in the State of Missouri as a distributor of Coors beer products.
4. Service of process has been properly made upon Coors in Golden, Colorado.
5. From June 1, 1978 to March 21, 1980 Coors had no distributors nor did Coors sell beer in any states east of the Mississippi River.
6. When Coors sells its beer products to a distributor, it parts with title and dominion over those products. Its contract with that distributor contains certain requirements (quality control), thereafter applicable to the beer.
7. On or about June 1, 1978 ABA and Coors entered into an agreement whereby ABA was appointed a distributor of Coors beer products to resell Coors beer products in a specified geographical area described in said agreement.
8. The specified geographical area described in the agreement included the Kansas City metropolitan area north of 31st Street in Jackson County, Clay County, Platte County and Ray County.
9. Sector Distributing Company, Inc., is the Coors' distributor immediately to the north of ABA's geographical area.
10. Southside Distributing, Inc. is the Coors' distributor immediately to the south of ABA's geographical area.
11. In order to obtain the agreement with Coors, ABA was required to have available approximately $1.4 million dollars, which money was made available by ABA and was expended for capital investments, trucks and equipment, the leasing of warehouse space, and the establishment of accounts and clientele.
12. ABA has expended time and effort promoting Coors beer products.
13. ABA has developed a successful and ongoing business in its territory, and has established successful and ongoing business relationships with its customers and potential customers.
14. In January, 1979 Abe Gustin, President of ABA, was called to Golden, Colorado for a meeting of several Coors distributors and Coors officials.
15. At that meeting, the group of distributors was informed that Coors believed that these distributors were selling Coors beer products outside of the geographical areas defined in their agreements.
16. Abe Gustin, in a private meeting with Coors officials during January, 1979, informed Coors officials that he was not selling Coors beer products outside of ABA's geographical area and stated that Milgrams, a large retailer served by ABA, might be reselling beer outside of the geographical area.
17. In January, 1980 Abe Gustin was called to Golden, Colorado for a meeting with Coors officials who informed him that they believed that ABA was making sales of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Coca-Cola Bottling of Elizabethtown v. Coca-Cola Co.
..."a franchise or other ordinary business relationship does not alone create fiduciary duties." Id. Additionally, ABA Distributors, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 542 F.Supp. 1272 (W.D.Mo. 1982), which relies on Arnott, characterizes the "fiduciary duty" between a brewer and its distributor as one......
-
Crim Truck & Tractor Co. v. Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp.
...F.2d at 485; Bain, 692 F.2d at 48; Murphy, 691 F.2d at 355; Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 696 F.Supp. at 75; ABA Distrib., Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 542 F.Supp. 1272, 1285-86 (W.D.Mo.1982); Picture Lake Campground, Inc., 497 F.Supp. at 869; Newark Motor Inn Corp., 472 F.Supp. at 1151. We, however......
-
In re Ward
...Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co., 522 F.2d 33, 40 (8th Cir.1975) (quoting National Marking Machine); ABA Distrib., Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 542 F.Supp. 1272, 1293 (W.D.Mo.1982). 26 Walla Walla City v. Walla Walla Water Co., 172 U.S. 1, 12, 19 S.Ct. 77, 82, 43 L.Ed. 341 27 E.g., Youngstown ......
-
In re Globe Distributors, Inc.
...within a reasonable period was wrong. Coors' conduct violated the spirit of the agreement and statute. See A.B.A. Distr. v. Adolph Coors Co., 542 F.Supp. 1272 (W.D.Mo.1982). Cf. Atlas Truck Leasing, Inc. v. First NH Banks, Inc., 808 F.2d 902 (1st Cir.1987); Fortune v. The National Cash Regi......
-
Franchise Relationship Laws
...Inc., 263 F.3d 296, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 12,151 (3d Cir. 2001). 35 . But see ABA Distribs., Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 542 F. Supp. 1272, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 7872 (W.D. Mo. 1982) (Missouri law). 36. AAMCO Indus., Inc. v. DeWolf, 250 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. 1977). In this case, the......
-
Limits On Termination Rights
...see Groseth Int’l v. Tenneco, 410 N.W.2d 159, 169 (S.D. 1987) (good faith duty, not fiduciary duty); ABA Distribs. v. Adolph Coors Co., 542 F. Supp. 1272, 1285-86 (W.D. Mo. 1982) (Missouri law). 7. E.g. , Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Pittsburg v. PepsiCo, 431 F.3d 1241, 1267-68 (10th Cir. 200......
-
Table of Cases
...1995) 237 n.38 AAMCO Indus., Inc. v. DeWolf, 250 N.W.2d 835 (Minn. 1977) 195 n.38; 202 n.79 ABA Distribs., Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co ., 542 F. Supp. 1272, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 7872 (W.D. Mo. 1982) 195 n.37; 201 n.75 Abrams v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 811 F. Supp. 848, 873 (E.D. N.Y. 1993......
-
Table of Cases
...OF CASES A A.B.C. Packard v. Gen. Motors Corp., 275 F.2d 63 (9th Cir. 1960), 131 ABA Distribs. v. Adolph Coors Co., 542 F. Supp. 1272 (W.D. Mo. 1982), 37 Abcor Corp. v. AM Int’l, 916 F.2d 924 (4th Cir. 1990), 173 Abrams v. Anheuser-Busch, 811 F. Supp. 848 (E.D.N.Y. 1993), 160 Ace Beer Distr......