[DOWNLOAD] "American Motors Sales Corp. v. Semke" by United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ~ Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: American Motors Sales Corp. v. Semke
• Author : United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Release Date : January 28, 1967
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 66 KB

Description

HILL, Circuit Judge The appeal is from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict in an action brought under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1221-1225, commonly referred to as ""The Automobile Dealers Day in Court Act."" The judgment and verdict were in favor of appellee-plaintiff, Semke, and against appellant-defendant, American Motor Sales Corporation. Semke, formerly a franchised dealer for American Motors, by his complaint, in pertinent part, alleged: That during the years 1959, until late in 1962, American Motors pursued a course of action that coerced and intimidated him into terminating his dealership agreement; that American Motors breached the conditions of the Franchise Agreement; that such course of conduct was in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1222 and as a result of such conduct he had suffered a monetary loss of $600,000.00 which he sought to recover from American Motors. Other claims for damages are alleged but not allowed by the jury and not pertinent here. The applicable part of the statute1 upon which the cause of action is based provides the dealer with two basic causes of action against an automobile manufacturer. These are for failure of the manufacturer to act in ""good faith"" to perform or comply with the terms of the provisions of the automobile dealer's franchise or in terminating, cancelling or not renewing the franchise. Semke apparently sought damages under both of these causes of action, primarily for the loss of future profits resulting from the termination of the Franchise Agreement. In addition he sought to recover damages resulting from American Motors' refusal to approve an assignment of his franchise to another dealer in Enid and also asked for punitive and exemplary damages. From the record we glean that some kind of a pretrial was had in the case but we find no pretrial order. We must observe that this case was certainly an appropriate one for the use of effective pretrial procedure. There the claims of the parties would be clearly set out, the triable issues would be agreed to by parties or delineated by the trial judge and everyone concerned with the case, including this court, would derive benefit. We believe the foregoing comment is appropriate because the form of verdict used does not reflect all of the claims made by the appellee-plaintiff in his complaint and we are unable to accurately tell from the record what happened to the cause of action for alleged breach of the Franchise Agreement or what prompted the trial judge to submit the case as he did.2 The appellee does not complain about the form of verdict or the method of submission so actually our only concern here is adequacy of the instructions given and the sufficiency of the proof to support the verdict returned. The jury's verdict awarded $18,000.00 for loss of profits resulting from the termination of the Franchise Agreement.

Free PDF Books "American Motors Sales Corp. v. Semke" Online ePub Kindle