McGinnis Piano and Organ Co. v. Yamaha Internat'l Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-1205.,71-1205. |
| Citation | 480 F.2d 474 |
| Parties | McGINNIS PIANO AND ORGAN COMPANY, Appellee, v. YAMAHA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Richard D. Allen, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
Craig A. Beck, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.
Before GIBSON, HEANEY and ROSS, Circuit Judges.
The Yamaha International Corporation appeals from a judgment for $67,224.50 in favor of the McGinnis Piano and Organ Company. The award was based on a jury verdict that Yamaha had breached an implied franchise agreement with McGinnis by terminating the franchise. Yamaha contends on appeal that:
(1) the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the issues of liability and damages;
(2) the trial court erred in denying Yamaha's motion for a directed verdict and its alternative motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial;
(3) the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict;
(4) the trial court erred in the admission and exclusion of evidence; and
(5) the verdict was excessive and contrary to law.
Appropriate motions were made by Yamaha at and after trial to preserve these issues for appeal.
We hold that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury as to liability and damages, that it did not err in denying Yamaha's motion for a directed verdict or for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We do not decide the remaining issues.
A brief outline of the largely undisputed facts will assist in understanding the issues.
McGinnis and its predecessor have been in the business of selling pianos and organs in Minneapolis since 1916. In 1963, it was approached by a Yamaha representative and asked to become the Yamaha dealer for the Twin Cities. McGinnis agreed to place an initial order. That order was followed by others. McGinnis was given a certificate as a Yamaha dealer soon after the first order arrived. McGinnis followed Yamaha's advice to concentrate on quality sales to schools, churches and other institutions, and participated in promotional efforts to increase such sales. It also participated in the Yamaha Service Bond Program, an after-sale warranty service. McGinnis participated in Yamaha dealer meetings, restricted sales to the trade territory assigned to it and undertook, at some expense, to develop the Yamaha music course for children. McGinnis also floor-planned its inventory through Yamaha, and reached a point where it handled Yamaha pianos exclusively.
Millard McGinnis, the president of McGinnis, devoted all his time and energies to the business. The company paid Millard McGinnis $150.00 per week in salary. Earnings were left in the company.
Yamaha piano sales, during the time McGinnis served as a dealer, were as follows:
1964 — 4
1965 — 31
1966 — 47
1967 — 58
1968 — 71
1969 — 74 (Partial)
No written franchise agreement was ever signed by the parties.
On July 16, 1969, Yamaha told McGinnis that it was being terminated as a dealer, and that a new dealer — a competitor — had been appointed to take its place. Yamaha offered to repurchase from McGinnis the Yamaha inventory. McGinnis declined to sell. Yamaha then agreed to sell pianos to McGinnis until September 1, 1969. Yamaha kept that commitment, but refused to make additional shipments after the specified date. McGinnis then commenced this action.
We think it clear that McGinnis presented sufficient evidence to justify an instruction permitting the jury to find that McGinnis and Yamaha had entered into a valid implied agreement under which McGinnis was recognized as a franchised dealer of Yamaha pianos. Moreover, the instructions given by the court, with respect to the elements necessary to establish such an agreement, were proper. No question with respect to their propriety is raised on this appeal.
We also think it is clear that McGinnis presented sufficient evidence to justify the jury in finding, under proper instructions, that McGinnis had made substantial investments in reliance on the franchise agreement, that a reasonable duration of the agreement could be implied, and that a reasonable notice to terminate the agreement was necessary.1
What is questioned is the propriety of the rather long and complex instructions in regard to the duration of the implied agreement, and the closely related instructions with respect to notice required to terminate the agreement.2 We understand the instructions to have permitted the jury to make one of two alternative findings with respect to the duration.
(1) It could find that the agreement was terminable by either party at will upon reasonable notice to the other. Reasonableness was defined as that notice which, under all of the circumstances of the case, would be regarded as a fair and reasonable advance period of notice to sever the relationship between the parties or, alternatively, the time needed by McGinnis to put its house in order to take steps to protect itself as it transferred its business from one line to another — the time necessary for McGinnis to recoup its investment. The jury was further instructed that in determining reasonableness, it could consider the profits which might be projected in the future, the availability of other lines of instruments, and the time and effort necessary to acquire a new line of pianos and organs.
(2) It could find that the agreement was for a longer period — "an unspecified period of time in the foreseeable future," "for some reasonable time into the future," or for as long as McGinnis satisfactorily performed as a Yamaha dealer.
The jury was instructed that under either alternative, the agreement could be terminated for good cause at any time by Yamaha without notice.
In our view, the instructions were contrary to Minnesota law. We understand the rule in Minnesota to be that franchise agreements which do not contain provisions for duration or termination are ordinarily terminable by either party at will upon reasonable notice to the other.3 Reasonable notice is that period of time necessary to close out the franchise and minimize losses.
We further understand Minnesota law to permit a reasonable duration to be implied in franchise agreements where a dealer has made substantial investments in reliance on the agreement. Reasonableness in such situations is measured by the length of time reasonably necessary for a dealer to recoup its investment. A reasonable notice period prior to termination is also required.4 As we stated in Clausen & Sons, Inc. v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co., 395 F.2d 388, 391 (8th Cir. 1968):
* * *".
In our view, the instructions given by the trial court did not follow Minnesota law in that:
(1) They did not permit the jury to find that the franchise agreement was terminable at will, subject only to reasonable notice — i. e., notice sufficient to permit McGinnis to close out the franchise and minimize his losses.
(2) They permitted the jury to find that the agreement could continue for as long as McGinnis performed satisfactorily.
We are convinced there was no oral understanding between the parties that McGinnis could continue to serve as a Yamaha dealer as long as it performed satisfactorily. Compare, Benson Coop. Creamery Ass'n v. First District Ass'n, 276 Minn. 520, 151 N.W.2d 422, 426 (1967).5 The president of McGinnis conceded that such was the case on cross-examination. We are also convinced that no such agreement can be implied from the circumstances. McGinnis apparently concedes this to be the case by arguing in its appellate brief that the court's instructions, when read as a whole, limited the duration of the agreement to "a reasonable period, sufficient to allow the dealer a fair opportunity to recoup its investment." We cannot agree. Our reading of the instructions leaves us with the clear impression that the jury could properly find that the agreement was intended by the parties to continue for as long as McGinnis performed satisfactorily. This was error.
(3) They permitted the jury to find that the agreement could continue for a period sufficient to permit McGinnis to recoup its investment, plus an additional period to realize reasonable future profits. This, too, was error. Had this portion of the instruction been silent as to the future profits, it would have been proper. But, we find no Minnesota law which extends the period of reasonable duration beyond that period necessary to permit the dealer to recoup its investment, plus a period of reasonable notice.
We agree with the trial court that the jury should have been given alternatives with respect to the duration of the agreement, but the alternatives should have been limited to: (1) an agreement terminable at will upon reasonable notice, with reasonableness being defined as that period of time necessary to close out the dealership, and (2) an agreement for that period of time reasonably necessary for McGinnis to recoup its investment, plus a reasonable notice prior to termination.
Yamaha argues that the Uniform Commercial Code adopted by the Minnesota Legislature in 1965 is applicable to the transaction, and that the termination is governed by the provisions of Minn.Stat.Ann. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sons of Thunder, Inc. v. Borden, Inc.
...Coastal Oil Co. v. Eastern Tankers Seaways Corp., 29 N.J.Super. 565, 577, 103 A.2d 26 (App.Div.1954); McGinnis Piano and Organ Co. v. Yamaha Int'l Corp., 480 F.2d 474, 479 (8th Cir.1973); Merando v. Mathy, 152 F.2d 21 (D.C.App.1945), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 804, 66 S.Ct. 966, 90 L.Ed. 1029 T......
-
Cox v. Doctor's Associates, Inc.
...Co. v. Hahn, Inc. (8th Cir.1973), 480 F.2d 482; Schultz v. Onan Corp. (3d Cir.1984), 737 F.2d 339; McGinnis Piano & Organ Co. v. Yamaha International Corp. (8th Cir.1973), 480 F.2d 474; W.K.T. Distributing Co. v. Sharp Electronics Corp. (8th Cir.1984), 746 F.2d 1333; Westfield Centre Servic......
-
Olander v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...718 F.2d 262, 266 (8th Cir.1983); Percival v. Gen. Motors Corp., 539 F.2d 1126, 1129 (8th Cir.1976); McGinnis Piano & Organ Co. v. Yamaha Int'l Corp., 480 F.2d 474, 479-80 (8th Cir.1973); Maple Island Farm, Inc. v. Bitterling, 209 F.2d 867, 878 (8th Cir.1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 882, 75......
-
Zapatha v. Dairy Mart, Inc.
...is no question here of a need for a reasonable time to recoup the franchisees' initial investment. See McGinnis Piano & Organ Co. v. Yamaha Int'l Corp., 480 F.2d 474, 480 (8th Cir. 1973); Gellhorn, Limitations on Contract Termination Rights Franchise Cancellations, 1967 Duke L.J. 465, 479-4......