O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-624 (2019)

Applicability; use of subsidiary to accomplish illegal act prohibited

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any person who engages directly or indirectly in purposeful contacts within this state in connection with the offering of advertising for sale or has business dealings with respect to a new motor vehicle sale within this state shall be subject to the provisions of this article and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state. (b) The applicability of this article shall not be affected by a choice of law clause in any franchise, agreement, waiver, novation, or any other written instrument. (c) Any provision of any franchise, agreement, waiver, novation, or any other written instrument executed, modified, extended, or renewed after July 1, 1983, which is in violation of any Code section of this article, and any amendments thereto, shall be deemed null and void and without force and effect. (d) No franchisor shall use any subsidiary corporation, affiliated corporation, or any other controlled corporation, partnership, association, or person to accomplish what would otherwise be illegal conduct under this article on the part of the franchisor.

History

Code 1981, § 10-1-624, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 1585, § 2; Ga. L. 2010, p. 988, § 4/HB 1072.

Annotations

Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 2010, p. 988, § 1/HB 1072, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: “WHEREAS, the General Assembly desires to reaffirm the legislative findings and declarations set forth in Code Section 10-1-621 and to

make changes to the Georgia Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices Act in an effort to promote the stability of franchised motor vehicle dealerships in this state, thereby maintaining necessary reliable services to the consuming public, maintaining full and fair competition among dealers in the public interest, and providing continued employment to the citizens of this state.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1998–1998 · leading case: Coffee v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Ga. 1998).
Coffee v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Ga. 1998). “To the contrary, § 10-1-624(d) bolsters GMAC’s contention that liability should be limited to franchisors, as the statute clearly contemplates the use of *1382 subsidiary corporations by franchisors to avoid liability, but the term was not defined to include those subsidiaries.”
— 10-1-624(d) — 1 case
Coffee v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Ga. 1998). “To the contrary, § 10-1-624(d) bolsters GMAC’s contention that liability should be limited to franchisors, as the statute clearly contemplates the use of *1382 subsidiary corporations by franchisors to avoid liability, but the term was not defined to include those subsidiaries.”
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.