Howard v. Chrysler Corp., 81-1889.
| Decision Date | 25 April 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1889.,81-1889. |
| Citation | 705 F.2d 1285 |
| Parties | Delmer P. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Chrysler Motors Corporation, Chrysler Financial Corporation, Chrysler Credit Corporation, and Chrysler Realty Corporation, Colorado Dodge, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Irvin M. Kent, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael S. McCarthy of Conover, McClearn, Heppenstall & Kearns, P.C., Denver, Colo. (Frederic K. Conover II, Denver, Colo., with him on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before SETH, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN and BARRETT, Circuit Judges.
The case was tried on two claims, one under the Automobile Dealer Franchise Act, and the other on a state claim of tortious interference with contractual relations. The proof advanced by the parties in nearly all respects went to both claims without a distinction being made.
There are several preliminary issues which need not be explored as the appeal can best be dealt with on the merits.
We have held for the actions of a manufacturer to lack good faith they must be unfair and inequitable "in addition to being for the purpose of `coercion' or `intimidation.'" Randy's Studebaker Sales, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp., 533 F.2d 510 (10th Cir.); Hanley v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 433 F.2d 708 (10th Cir.). Arbitrariness by the manufacturer is not enough. Salco Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 517 F.2d 567 (10th Cir.). Also under the terms of the Act itself "recommendation," "endorsement," "persuasion," "urging" and "argument" do not constitute lack of good faith. A failure to renew or a termination without an expressed reason is not necessarily an indication of lack of good faith. There must be proof of the elements described above.
The trial court in its memorandum reviewed in detail the series of events and acts which were advanced by plaintiff as violations of the statute. The court found that none constituted coercion or intimidation. Some actions it observed may have been arbitrary, but this was not in itself a violation of the Act. The trial court gave detailed consideration to the events which took place during the last four months of the relationship. It found that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Empire Volkswagen Inc. v. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., WORLD-WIDE
...Motor Co., 773 F.2d 1193, 1210 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 1641, 90 L.Ed.2d 186 (1986); Howard v. Chrysler Corp., 705 F.2d 1285 (10th Cir.1983); Fray Chevrolet Sales, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 536 F.2d 683 (6th Cir.1976). As we stated in Autowest, "more is re......
-
North Broadway Motors v. FIAT MOTORS
...held that the coercive demand must be wrongful, unfair, or inequitable in order to be actionable. See, e.g., Howard v. Chrysler Corp., 705 F.2d 1285, 1286-87 (10th Cir.1983); H.C. Blackwell Co., 620 F.2d at 107; Marquis, 577 F.2d at 633; Autohaus Brugger, Inc. v. Saab Motors, Inc., 567 F.2d......
-
Fox Motors, Inc. v. Mazda Distributors (Gulf), Inc., 83-2125
...as requiring proof of both unfair treatment and some measure of coercion or intimidation to support a claim. See Howard v. Chrysler Corp., 705 F.2d 1285 (10th Cir.1983); Randy's Studebaker Sales, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp., 533 F.2d 510 (10th Cir.1976). "The existence of coercion or intimid......
-
State Distributors, Inc. v. Glenmore Distilleries Co.
...federal Day-in-Court Act, such conduct must be coercive and intimidating as well as being unfair and inequitable. Howard v. Chrysler Corp., 705 F.2d 1285, 1286 (10th Cir.1983); Randy's Studebaker Sales, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corporation in U.S.A., 533 F.2d 510 (10th Cir.1976). In support of ......