Recent Developments: Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act - Special Order Products, 59 Ark. L. Rev. 199.
Case Notes
Applicability.
Where a truck dealer and franchisee asserted that a truck manufacturer and franchisor granted greater price concessions to the dealer's competitors, the dealer was not limited to the remedies provided by the Arkansas Motor Vehicle Commission Act, § 23-112-101 et seq., and could pursue remedies under the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act, § 4-72-201 et seq.Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. v. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp., 374 F.3d 701 (8th Cir. 2004), rev'd, Volvo Trucks N. Am., Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc., 546 U.S. 164 (2006).
Arbitration.
Parties'
arbitration agreement did not limit or waive any substantive rights a distributor had under the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act, should it be found to apply. Instead, the claims under the Act could be resolved in the arbitral forum, as well as any other issues and claims raised by the distributor.
Gruma Corp. v. Morrison, 2010 Ark. 151, 362 S.W.3d 898 (2010).
Cited:
Kent Jenkins Sales, Inc. v. Angelo Bros. Co., 804 F.2d 482 (8th Cir. 1986); Morgan Distrib. Co. v. Unidynamic Corp., 868 F.2d 992 (8th Cir. 1989); Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Thomas Auto Co., 939 F.2d 538 (8th Cir. 1991); Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Frantz, 311 Ark. 136, 842 S.W.2d 37 (1992); Arkcom Digital Corp. v. Xerox Corp., 289 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 2002).
South Beach Beverage Co. v. Harris Brands, Inc., 138 S.W.3d 102 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 2דThe Arkansas Franchise Practices Act is found at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-72-201 through 4-72-210 (Repl.”
Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Frantz, 842 S.W.2d 37 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 2ד1 The Arkansas Franchise Practices Act [Act 355 of 1977, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-72-201 — 210 (1987)] provides remedies for persons whose rights as franchisees have been terminated without good cause.”
Gruma Corp. v. Morrison, 362 S.W.3d 898 (Ark. 2010). · cites it 2דWe accepted certification of this case from the court of appeals because it involves an issue of first impression, substantial public interest, and a substantial question of law concerning the interpretation of the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act (AFPA), codified at Ark.Code…”
Stockton v. Sentry Ins., 989 S.W.2d 914 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2ד, defines a franchise as follows: “Franchise” means a written or oral agreement for a definite or indefinite period, in which a person grants to another person a license to use a trade name, trademark, service mark, or related characteristic within an exclusive or nonexclusive…”
Arkcom Digit. Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant/cross v. Xerox Corp., Defendant-Appellee/cross, 289 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 2002). “After Xerox Corporation terminated Arkcom Digital Corporation as an authorized Xerox service agent, Arkcom filed suit in Arkansas state court alleging breach of contract and violations of the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-72-201 et seq (AFPA).”
Carquest of Hot Springs, Inc. v. Gen. Parts, Inc., 204 S.W.3d 53 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 2דOn January 25, 2000, Carquest filed an answer and a counterclaim, alleging wrongful termination of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-72-201 et seq. (Supp.”
Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. CLM EQUIP. Co., INC., 236 F. Supp. 2d 536 (W.D.N.C. 2002). “Considering first the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act, Ark.Code Ann. §§ 4-72-201, et seq., it is alleged that Clark “is an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business in Little Rock, Arkansas.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.