Record failed to contain sufficient evidence to support plaintiff-franchisee’s claim under Indiana Franchise Disclosure Act, alleging that defendant-franchisor “unfairly discriminated” against plaintiff by providing more favorable pricing concessions on truck purchases to other franchise dealerships than it gave to plaintiff during process of selling trucks manufactured by defendant. Applicable franchise agreement allowed defendant discretion when awarding concessions, and plaintiff failed to show that unexplained difference in treatment with respect to 13 transactions at issue in case was “unfair” or otherwise was not norm among franchisees. Result might be different had plaintiff been able to show consistent pattern of offering worse concessions to plaintiff than it offered to others for same truck purchase by same customer. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on defendant’s claim that plaintiff breached dealership agreement by failing to build new facility, where said alleged promise was not contained in written dealership agreement that had integration clause.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Franchise