Biever Motor Car Co. v. Chrysler Corp.
Decision Date | 16 May 1952 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3194. |
Citation | 108 F. Supp. 948 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Parties | BIEVER MOTOR CAR CO. v. CHRYSLER CORP. |
Herbert L. Emanuelson, New Haven, Conn., for plaintiff.
Cummings & Lockwood, by William H. Timbers, Stamford, Conn., for defendant.
This is an action for breach of contract. The plaintiff, "Biever", was for many years a Chrysler dealer in New Haven. On August 29, 1944 Biever and Chrysler executed two written agreements: an "Agreement Between Chrysler Direct Dealer and Chrysler Corporation, Chrysler Division", and a "Chrysler Direct Dealer-Retail Memorandum of Sales Area." Both agreements were in the form of printed booklets. They superseded other agreements which had previously been in effect between the parties.
The "Memorandum of Sales Area", which was made to be subject to the terms and conditions of the other agreement between the parties, provided that Biever should have the non-exclusive right to purchase Chrysler and Plymouth automobiles for resale in an area consisting of New Haven, West Haven, Hamden, North Haven and East Haven, and that it should have the exclusive right to maintain a place of business for selling such cars in New Haven Township. As to termination, the agreement provided that it should terminate automatically upon the termination of the main agreement between the parties.
The other, main, agreement sets forth at considerable length some of the rights and obligations of the parties in relation to the agency provided for under the "Memorandum of Sales Area." A preface to the agreement, entitled "Purposes of the Agreement", set forth in general terms what are stated to be the objectives thereof and provided that "the terms of this agreement relate to the foregoing principles and policies * * *." Under the agreement the dealer was given the privilege of ordering cars from Chrysler, but all orders were made subject to Chrysler's approval and acceptance. The agreement contained no provision as to prices, except that it provided that the dealer should have the advantage of any price reductions made between the time of his order and the time of delivery. No provision was included as to the terms of purchase: instead, the agreement provided merely that Chrysler would keep the dealer informed of prices and would furnish it with terms of purchase. In return for these limited rights Biever obligated itself to furnish various reports to Chrysler, to confine its sales to its own sales area; to maintain an adequate parts inventory; to use only Chrysler-approved advertising matter, etc.
There is no provision in the agreement as to its term. Instead, the agreement embodies two sections concerning termination. These are as follows:
In February, 1948, pursuant to Section 8 of the agreement, Chrysler informed Biever that, effective ninety days from receipt of notice thereof, it was terminating all agreements in effect between them. This was accompanied by a letter in which the defendant assigned as the reason for its action the death of Mr. Biever, theretofore an executive in the plaintiff corporation. In due course the termination became effective and Chrysler ceased to supply new automobiles to Biever.
Biever claims that this termination was wrongful as to it. It asks $950,000 in damages for losses it claims to have suffered because Chrysler failed to deliver further automobiles to it. In its complaint it alleged that Chrysler attempted to terminate "in the absence of good faith, wrongfully, maliciously, and without cause." This allegation was denied by the defendant who, in addition, alleged as a special defense that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
During the course of pre-trial discovery it became clear that the decision of the case might hinge on a question as to the interpretation of the main agreement. The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Niagara Mohawk Power v. Graver Tank & Mfg.
...to a requirement of good faith. Bushwick-Decatur Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 116 F.2d 675 (2d Cir. 1940); Biever Motor Car Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 108 F.Supp. 948 (D.Conn.), aff'd, 199 F.2d 758 (2d Cir. 1952); Sharpe v. Great Lakes Steel Corp., 9 F.R.D. 691 (S.D.N.Y. Another case which i......
-
Gambar Enterprises, Inc. v. Kelly Services, Inc.
...cites cases involving agreements of indefinite duration (Bushwick-Decatur Motors v. Ford Motor Co., 116 F.2d 675; Biever Motor Car Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 108 F.Supp. 948; Martin v. Ford Motor Co., 93 F.Supp. 920; Dunn v. Goebel Brewing Co., 357 Mich. 693, 99 N.W.2d 380) and a case involving......
-
A.S. Rampell, Inc. v. Hyster Co.
...282 N.Y. 365, 372-373, 26 N.E.2d 295, 297-298; Bushwick-Decatur Motors v. Ford Motor Co., 2 Cir., 116 F.2d 675; Biever Motor Car Co. v. Chrysler Corp., D.C., 108 F.Supp. 948, affirmed 2 Cir., 199 F.2d 758; Sharpe v. Great Lakes Steel Corp., D.C., 9 F.R.D. 691, 693; cf. Sylvan Crest Sand & G......
-
Rubinger v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp.
...and not even good faith was required. Bushwick-Decatur Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 2 Cir., 116 F.2d 675; Biever Motor Car Co. v. Chrysler Corp., D.C.D.Conn., 108 F.Supp. 948, affirmed 2 Cir., 199 F.2d 758; Martin v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.E.D. Mich., 93 F.Supp. 920; Green Bay Auto Distribu......