Tietjens v. General Motors Corp.
Decision Date | 10 July 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 52555,No. 1,52555,1 |
Citation | 418 S.W.2d 75 |
Parties | William T. TIETJENS, Respondent, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, and Marvelle C. Carter, Administratrix of the Estate of Bennett C. Carter, Deceased, Appellants |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Morris H. Kross, James W. Benjamin, Rogers, Field & Gentry, Kansas City, for respondent.
John Murphy, Lucian Lane, Clark A. Ridpath, Tucker, Murphy, Wilson, Lane & Kelly, Kansas City, for appellants.
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Action for damages for fraud resulting in verdict and judgment for plaintiff against both defendants for $15,000 actual damages and against defendant General Motors Corporation for $5,000 punitive damages, a total judgment of $20,000.
In the summer of 1958 plaintiff, William T. Tietjens, in association with his son Terry, was farming and raising cattle on 1,052 acres near Richland, Kansas. Lloyd Craig, while a partner in a Massey Ferguson farm implement dealership in Hiawatha, Kansas, had known Mr. Tietjens for twelve or fourteen years. In the summer of 1958 Mr. Craig was selling farm implements for various dealers on commission and he visited Mr. Tietjens several times. Through him, Mr. Tietjens learned that Frank and Ted J. Kuckelman, owners of Massey Ferguson, Inc., New Holland Machine Company, and Chevrolet Division of General Motors Corporation dealer franchises at Frankfort, Kansas, were interested in selling their business. Mr. Tietjens became interested in purchasing the Kuckelman business and, on September 23, 1958, contracted with them for the purchase of their real estate, building, shop equipment, parts, and fixtures, contingent upon plaintiff's receiving dealer franchises of Chevrolet Motor Division and of the two farm implement companies.
At all times General Motors maintained a zone office in Kansas City, Missouri, for its Chevrolet Division and its area included the Frankfort, Kansas, dealership. Bennett C. Carter was the zone manager and William L. Woodin was the assistant zone manager. 'They were charged with the responsibility of protecting the Company's interest in the retail markets of the area in which they had supervision of new cars, new trucks, parts and accessories.' They dealt 'with the dealer organization.' In the Chevrolet Division echelon there was a regional office, also located in Kansas City, between the zone office and Detroit, Michigan, headquarters. The regional office supervised zone offices in its region. It normally had no contact with retail dealers and, in this case, had no direct contract or correspondence with plaintiff.
On September 29, 1958, plaintiff, his son Terry, and the Kuckelmans were in the Kansas City zone office where they met zone manager Carter and assistant zone manager Woodin. Plaintiff testified that at this meeting Ted Kuckelman told Mr. Carter 'he was selling--we had bought his business, subject to the contract, of course.' Mr. Carter gave plaintiff an 'application for Chevrolet Dealer Selling Agreement' which plaintiff took home, completed, and mailed to the zone office. He understood its provisions, including the recitals that he, as applicant, 'ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES:
On November 3, 1958, plaintiff, Terry, and the Kuckelmans were again in the zone office and the application and plaintiff's plans were discussed. Plaintiff recognized at this meeting that the application had not had sufficient opportunity to get through channels for consideration in Detroit.
On November 19, 1958, these same persons were in the zone office. Plaintiff asked how the franchise was coming along and Mr. Carter said 'that he had passed on it and sent it on to his--I just proposed (sic) that it was Detroit--he said it was his superior.' Plaintiff knew and understood at this time that before he could get a Chevrolet dealer selling agreement it had to be approved in Detroit and that it had not yet been approved in Detroit. Plaintiff had been approved for the Massey Ferguson and New Holland dealerships prior to this meeting.
It was shown that a zone manager was responsible to the regional manager; that persons seeking dealer selling agreements would file written application with the zone manager. If the zone manager approved, he sent the application to the regional manager. If the regional manager approved, he sent the application to Detroit; it not, the matter ended there.
Mr. Carter prepared a 'Chevrolet Dealer Organization Change' December 5, 1958, in which he approved a dealership change from Kuckelmans to Mr. Tietjens. This was mailed to the regional office December 9, 1958. On December 17, 1958, the regional manager, A. W. Strang, rejected the proposed change and, by letter received in the zone office December 19, 1958, stated the reasons for rejection and so notified Mr. Carter and the zone office. Mr. Tietjens was not told of this rejection. He learned of the rejection about December 21, 1958, through Frank Kuckelman, who told him he had heard that the change of franchise from Kuckelmans to Mr. Tietjens was not 'going through' and would not be approved. Mr. Tietjens then went to the zone office on December 23, 1958, accompanied by Mr. Craig, to confer with Mr. Carter and Mr. Woodin. Mr. Craig related the conversation: Mr. Tietjens' version of the conversation:
Tietjens went to the Kuckelmans and negotiated and entered into new contracts of purchase excluding Chevrolet parts and omitting contingency provisions. The contracts were performed by plaintiff; he purchased the land, building, shop equipment, fixtures, and farm machinery parts, and 'the first part of the year' he and Terry took possession of the property and the farm implement business.
About January 5, 1959, Mr. Tietjens and Terry met Mr. Woodin in Manhattan, Kansas and were introduced to a Mr. Tuckfield, a Chevrolet field representative, better known as a 'block man.' ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hofer v. Lavender
...(1910); Braun v. Moreno, 11 Ariz. App. 509, 466 P.2d 60 (1970); Johnson v. Levy, 122 La. 118, 47 So. 422 (1908); Tietjens v. General Motors Corp., 418 S.W.2d 75 (Mo.1967); Barnes v. Smith, 305 F.2d 226 (10th Cir.1962) (New Mexico); Thorpe v. Wilson, 58 N.C. App. 292, 293 S.E.2d 675 (1982); ......
-
Field v. Mans
...person); First Mobile Home Corp. v. Little, 298 So. 2d 676, 679 (Miss. 1974)(requiring justifiable reliance); Tietjens v. General Motors Corp., 418 S.W.2d 75, 81-83 (Mo. 1967) (stating that reliance required depends on the positions of the parties, and that there is no duty to investigate);......
-
Whetstone v. Binner
...sessions)), overruled on other grounds by Glaskox ex rel. Denton v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906, 907 (Miss.1992) ; Tietjens v. Gen. Motors Corp., 418 S.W.2d 75, 88 (Mo.1967) ; Allen v. Anderson, 93 Nev. 204, 562 P.2d 487, 489–90 (1977) (subsequently codified at Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 41.100(2) (We......
-
In the Matter of The EState Vajgrt
...sessions)), overruled on other grounds by Glaskox ex rel. Denton v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906, 907 (Miss.1992); Tietjens v. Gen. Motors Corp., 418 S.W.2d 75, 88 (Mo.1967); Allen v. Anderson, 93 Nev. 204, 562 P.2d 487, 489–90 (1977) (subsequently codified at Nev.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 41.100(2) (West......
-
Section 7 Existence of Malice and Absence of Good Faith
...399, 401 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985)· Snodgrass v. Headco Indus., Inc., 640 S.W.2d 147, 156 (Mo. App. W.D. 1982)· Tietjens v. Gen. Motors Corp., 418 S.W.2d 75, 88 (Mo. 1967)A party who “acts in good faith and honestly believes that his act is lawful” is not liable for punitive damages. Tamko Aspha......
-
Section 8.11 Plaintiff Relied on and Had the Right to Rely on the False
...and proven. Reliance and the right to rely are questions of fact for determination by the jury. See Tietjens v. Gen. Motors Corp., 418 S.W.2d 75, 83 (Mo. 1967); White v. Bowman, 304 S.W.3d 141, 151 (Mo. App. S.D....
-
Section 84 Corporate Defendants
...damages only when superior officers either order, participate in, or ratify outrageous conduct. See: Tietjens v. Gen. Motors Corp., 418 S.W.2d 75, 88 (Mo. 1967) Rinker v. Ford Motor Co., 567 S.W.2d 655, 669 (Mo. App. W.D. 1978) Collins v. Adams Dairy Co., 661 S.W.2d 603, 606 (Mo. App. E.D. ......