Fiat Distributors, Inc. v. Hidbrader
Decision Date | 31 October 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 1-178A18,1-178A18 |
Citation | 178 Ind.App. 200,381 N.E.2d 1069 |
Parties | FIAT DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James HIDBRADER d/b/a Hidbrader Motor Sales, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Don M. Robertson, Thomas Bunger, Bunger, Harrell & Robertson, Bloomington, for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas A. Berry, Bloomington, for defendant-appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant Fiat Distributors, Inc. (F.D.I.) appeals from a judgment of the trial court, wherein F.D.I. was granted judgment against defendant-appellee James Hidbrader (Hidbrader) in the amount of $21,075 based on an over payment to Hidbrader, but wherein the trial court also granted judgment in the amount of $12,567.05 to Hidbrader on his counterclaim, which counterclaim was based on F.D.I.'s breach of its contract to buy back certain new and unused Fiat automobiles.
On February 26, 1976 Hidbrader, who operated an automobile retail business in Bloomington, Indiana, gave F.D.I. notice that he was going out of business and that he wanted to terminate his franchise for selling Fiat automobiles. On March 5, 1976 F.D.I. acknowledged Hidbrader's termination and offered to repurchase his current parts inventory and his Fiat sign.
Concerning the repurchase of Fiat automobiles the franchise agreement, which was originally signed between F.D.I. and Hidbrader, contained the following:
In order to induce the Bloomfield State Bank to finance Hidbrader's inventory of cars, F.D.I. made the following agreement with the Bloomfield State Bank:
"We (F.D.I.) will repurchase in case of termination of this franchise by either party, not more than thirty (30), new and unused current model Fiats. . . ." (Our insert)
After hearing of Hidbrader's intentions of discontinuing his Fiat franchise, D. E. Manning, the President of F.D.I. and an acquaintance of Hidbrader, called Hidbrader and informed him that F.D.I. would buy back up to 30 of the new and unused Fiat cars that Hidbrader possessed. No inference was given that such cars had to be current 1976 models.
Rather than repurchase all of Hidbrader's new and unused Fiat automobiles, of which there were four 1976 models and fourteen 1975 models, F.D.I. helped Hidbrader sell his inventory of new and unused Fiats to other Fiat dealers. Because of F.D.I.'s failure to repurchase the automobiles outright, Hidbrader lost an average of $250 per car, had to expend more than 150 hours in order to complete the selling of those cars, and had to keep his showroom open five months longer than he otherwise would have done.
In July 1976 F.D.I. issued Hidbrader a settlement check for $22,030.70. By mistake another check in the same amount was sent to Hidbrader. When F.D.I. requested Hidbrader to return the check, he refused, stating that he was damaged by F.D.I.'s failure to buy back all his new and unused automobiles, to buy back all of his parts inventory, and to reimburse him for certain interest, time, and travel expenses for which he claimed that F.D.I. owed him.
F.D.I. brought this action, seeking the return of its $22,030.07 over payment. Hidbrader counterclaimed for the same amount; such counterclaim was based upon F.D.I.'s alleged breach of contract. The trial court granted judgment in favor of F.D.I. on its original action in the amount of $21,075, but also granted Hidbrader judgment on his counterclaim in the amount of $12,567.05, such sum to be a setoff against F.D.I.'s judgment.
The issues which have been presented to this court for review are as follows:
1. Whether Hidbrader was a third party beneficiary of the buy back agreement between F.D.I. and Bloomfield State Bank.
2. Whether the judgment was contrary to law.
3. Whether the judgment was supported by sufficient evidence.
F.D.I. contends that the repurchasing agreement between F.D.I. and the Bloomfield State Bank in no way affected F.D.I.'s franchising contract with Hidbrader. We disagree.
The clear intent of the repurchasing agreement between F.D.I. and the Bloomfield State Bank was to provide financing for Hidbrader's inventory of Fiat automobiles. Such a contract obviously was intended to benefit all three business entities.
A third party beneficiary contract is one in which the promisor has a legal interest in performance in favor of the third party and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Superbird Farms, Inc. v. Perdue Farms, Inc.
...520; see also First Federal Savings Bank of Indiana v. Key Markets, Inc., 559 N.E.2d 600, 604 (Ind.1990); Fiat Distributors, Inc. v. Hidbrader, 381 N.E.2d 1069, 1071 (Ind.App.1978) (where contract was ambiguous it was proper for the trial court to consider parol evidence to determine the in......
-
Wilson v. Palmer
...him directly, that it must necessarily benefit him, and that Commonwealth has breached its contract. See Fiat Distributors, Inc. v. Hidbrader, (1978) 178 Ind.App. 200, 381 N.E.2d 1069. As to Wilson's negligence theory, Commonwealth correctly contends that Indiana does not recognize the tort......
-
Gonzales v. Kil Nam Chun
...(1983) Ind.App., 452 N.E.2d 426, 429; Mogensen v. Martz, (1982) Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 34, 35; Fiat Distributors, Inc. v. Hidbrader, (1978) 178 Ind.App. 200, 203, 381 N.E.2d 1069, 1071; Blackhard v. Monarch's Manufacturers and Distributors, (1960) 131 Ind.App. 514, 521, 169 N.E.2d 735, 739; J......
-
First Federal Sav. Bank of Indiana v. Key Markets, Inc.
...evidence may be, and was in this case, admitted to determine the intent of the parties to the contract. Fiat Distributors, Inc. v. Hidbrader (1978), Ind.App., 381 N.E.2d 1069, 1071. Specifically, in cases of ambiguity, negotiations leading up to the lease can be considered to determine the ......