13.1 Automobile Dealers Day-in-Court Act (15 U.S.C. § 1221)

• Library: Federal Civil Jury Instructions for the Fifth Circuit
• Edition: 2020

13

MISCELLANEOUS FEDERAL

CLAIMS

13.1 Automobile Dealers Day-in-Court Act (15

U.S.C. § 1221)

Plaintiff [name] claims that Defendant [name]

failed to act in good faith in [terminating/cancelling/not

renewing] Plaintiff [name]’s written franchise agree-

ment, violating a federal statute called the Automobile

Dealers Day-in-Court Act.1To prevail on a claim under

the Act, Plaintiff [name] must show a lack of good faith

by Defendant [name].2This requires a showing that

Defendant [name] coerced or intimidated Plaintiff

[name].3Each party to an automobile franchise agree-

1The ADDCA states:

An automobile dealer may bring suit against any automobile

manufacturer . . . and shall recover the damages by him sustained

and the cost of suit by reason of the failure of said automobile

manufacturer . . . to act in good faith in performing or complying

with any of the terms or provisions of the franchise, or in terminat-

ing, canceling, or not renewing the franchise with said dealer[.]

15 U.S.C. § 1222.

2Randy’s Studebaker Sales, Inc. v. Nissan Motor Corp., 533 F.2d 510,

514 (10th Cir. 1976) (The ADDCA “gives to an automobile dealer a federal

cause of action against an automobile manufacturer who fails to act in

good faith in performing or complying with any of the terms or provisions

of the franchise.”).

3Cabriolet Porsche Audi, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 773 F.2d

1193, 1210 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 112 (1986) (“Case law is

clear that a manufacturer fails to act in good faith for purposes of recovery

under [the ADDCA] only if its conduct amounts to coercion or

intimidation.”); Bob Maxfield, Inc. v. Am. Motors Corp., 637 F.2d 1033,

1038 (5th Cir. 1981) (“Accordingly, it is well established that actual coer-

cion, intimidation, or threats are an essential element of a cause of action

under the Act.”).

326