(a) The legislature of the state of Connecticut finds and declares that the distribution and sales of gasoline and petroleum products through franchises within the state of Connecticut, including the rights and obligations of suppliers and dealers, vitally affects its general economy. In order to promote the public interest and public welfare, to avoid undue control of the dealer by suppliers, to foster and keep alive vigorous and healthy competition for the benefit of the public by prohibiting practices through which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented, to promote the public safety, to prevent deterioration of facilities for servicing motor vehicles on the highways of the state, to prevent dealers from unnecessarily going out of business thereby resulting in unemployment with loss of tax revenue to the state and its resultant undesirable consequences, and to offset evident abuses within the petroleum industry as a result of inequitable economic power, it is necessary to legislate standards pursuant to the exercise of the police power of this state governing the relationship between suppliers and distributors of gasoline and petroleum products and the dealers within the state who sell those products to the public.
(b) In recognition of the factors set forth in subsection (a) of this section, it is provided that all provisions of sections 42-133j to 42-133n, inclusive, to the extent permitted by law, shall be deemed effective as to those presently existing franchise agreements involving gasoline dealers within the state of Connecticut as of October 1, 1977.
(c) The legislature further finds and declares that the distribution and sales of motor vehicle fuels and oils in the state of Connecticut affects the general economy of the state, the public interest and the public welfare. Competition, freedom from unreasonable restraints on alienation and competitive pricing are essential to the functioning of a fair and efficient free market economy within the petroleum industry. The legislature finds and declares that existing petroleum franchise agreements as defined and regulated within sections 42-133e to 42-133h, inclusive, uniformly prohibit assignment of franchise interests without the consent of the franchisor, which consent may be unreasonably and arbitrarily withheld. Also, existing petroleum franchise agreements provide for their automatic termination upon the death of the franchisee. The legislature finds and declares that such provisions constitute unreasonable restraints on alienation and inhibit the fair and efficient functioning of a free market economy within the petroleum industry. Therefore, it is provided that the provisions of any franchise agreement which prohibit assignment without the consent of the franchisor and permit such consent to be unreasonably withheld are void and without effect as contrary to public policy. It is further provided that the provisions of any franchise agreement which terminate the franchise automatically upon the death of the franchisee are void and ineffective as contrary to public policy. The legislature finds and declares that provisions in certain existing petroleum franchise agreements prohibit gasoline retailers or distributors from offering a discount to a buyer based upon the method of payment by such buyer for gasoline. The legislature finds and declares that such provisions constitute unreasonable restraints on competitive pricing and inhibit the fair and efficient functioning of a free market economy within the petroleum industry. Therefore, it is provided that the provisions of any franchise agreement that prohibit gasoline retailers or distributors from offering a discount to a buyer based upon the method of payment by such buyer for gasoline are void and without effect as contrary to public policy.
(P.A. 77-493, S. 1; June 11 Sp. Sess. P.A. 08-2, S. 3.)
History: June 11 Sp. Sess. P.A. 08-2 amended Subsec. (c) to add “competitive pricing” re functioning of free market economy within petroleum industry and add legislative finding and declaration re petroleum franchise agreement provisions banning buyer discounts based on method of payment for gasoline, effective June 17, 2008.
Notes of Decisions
Stand. Petroleum Co. v. Faugno Acquisition, LLC, 191 A.3d 147 (Conn. 2018).
· cites it 2× “In reliance on these allegations, the six count complaint set forth claims of (1) breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment, **45 (3) violation of the Connecticut Petroleum Franchise Act, General Statutes § 42-133j et seq., (4) violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices…”
Ted's Tire Serv. Inc. v. Chevron U. S. A. Inc., 470 F. Supp. 163 (D. Conn. 1979).
· cites it 2× “When the agreement expired, the complaint alleges, the defendant refused to renew the franchise, except on unreasonable terms, without good cause, without proper notice and without compensation to the plaintiff, all of which is said to be in violation of Conn.Gen.Stat. §…”
Ackley v. Gulf Oil Corp., 726 F. Supp. 353 (D. Conn. 1989).
· cites it 2× “§§ 2801-2806 , the Connecticut Petroleum Franchise Act (“CPFA”), C.G.S. §§ 42-133j to 42-133n, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”), C.”
Gager v. Mobil Oil Corp., 547 F. Supp. 854 (D. Conn. 1982).
· cites it 8× “Conn.Gen.Stat. § 42-133j(a) (emphasis added).”
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Karbowski, 667 F. Supp. 927 (D. Conn. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The reasons for the passage of the Gasoline Dealers Act are codified in section 42-133j(a). 10 Mobil contends that portions of section 42-133Í are preempted by the PMPA under the circumstance of this case.”
Getty Petroleum Mktg., Inc. v. Ahmad, 757 A.2d 494 (Conn. 2000).
· cites it 2× “In reaching this conclusion, the trial court reasoned that although the parties’ arrangements did not qualify as franchises under the petroleum franchise act; General Statutes §§ 42-133j through 42-133n; the general franchise act was applicable.”
Aldin Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. Hess Corp., 170 A.3d 682 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 4× “After denying the plaintiff's claim for a trial by jury on the ground that the plaintiff had executed valid written waivers of its right to a jury trial, the trial court conducted a bench trial and rendered judgment for the defendant on all three counts, finding that the…”
Automatic Comfort Corp. v. D & R Serv., INC., 627 F. Supp. 783 (D. Conn. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Defendant has answered and counterclaimed on the basis that the Connecticut Fair Conduct in Franchising Act (“CFCFA”), Conn.Gen.Stat. § 42-133j et seq., vested it with rights as a franchisee and precludes termination as asserted by plaintiff.”
Branford Quick Mart, LLC v. Aldin Assocs. Ltd. P'ship (Conn. App. Ct. 2026).
· cites it 11× “Partnership rendered in favor of the defendant, Aldin Associates Limited Partnership, in this action alleging that the defendant’s termination of lease agreements was in violation of the Connecticut Petroleum Franchise Act (petroleum franchise act), General Statutes § 42-133j et…”
Grease Monkey Int'l, Inc. v. Watkins, 808 F. Supp. 111 (D. Conn. 1992).
· cites it 4× “13 Such notice, Watkins argues, was not in accordance with the Connecticut Gasoline Dealer’s Act [“CGDA”], Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 42-133j to -133n, 14 specifically § 42-133Z(f)(10) which provides: No franchisor .”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-133j(a) — 4 cases
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Karbowski, 667 F. Supp. 927 (D. Conn. 1987).
“The reasons for the passage of the Gasoline Dealers Act are codified in section 42-133j(a). 10 Mobil contends that portions of section 42-133Í are preempted by the PMPA under the circumstance of this case.”
Aldin Assocs. Ltd. P'ship v. Hess Corp., 170 A.3d 682 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
“After denying the plaintiff's claim for a trial by jury on the ground that the plaintiff had executed valid written waivers of its right to a jury trial, the trial court conducted a bench trial and rendered judgment for the defendant on all three counts, finding that the…”
Grease Monkey Int'l, Inc. v. Watkins, 808 F. Supp. 111 (D. Conn. 1992).
“13 Such notice, Watkins argues, was not in accordance with the Connecticut Gasoline Dealer’s Act [“CGDA”], Conn.Gen.Stat. §§ 42-133j to -133n, 14 specifically § 42-133Z(f)(10) which provides: No franchisor .”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-133j(b) — 1 case
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-133j(c) — 1 case
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.