O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-1-631 (2019)

Unlawful acts of franchisor

✓ 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) It is declared to be violative of the existing law of the State of Georgia for any franchisor: (1) To fail to act in good faith with any dealer in connection with the sale, transfer, termination, or succession of a franchise or in connection with the operation of a dealer’s business pursuant to a franchise or to fail to act in good faith in any of its business transactions with a dealer; or (2) To utilize a boycott, refusal to deal, threat of refusal to deal, coercion, threat of punitive action, withholding of benefits, or other unconscionable business practices in any of its business transactions with a dealer. (b) Without limitation as to other actions which may violate this Code section, it shall be evidence of a violation of this Code section if a franchisor commits any action which would be a violation of any part of Part 1 of this article, the “Georgia Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices Act.”

History

Code 1981, § 10-1-631, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 1585, § 2.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Bad faith required. - A violation of O.C.G.A. § 10-1-631 was not established by the prospective transferee of a franchise who failed to show that the franchisor acted in bad faith in rejecting the transfer. Hickman v. American Honda Motor Co., 982 F. Supp. 881, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20786 (N.D. Ga. 1997), aff’d, 138 F.3d 958, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 7062 (11th Cir. 1998). Finance company was not a franchisor and could not be liable under Georgia Motor Vehicle Dealer’s Day in Court Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-630 et seq. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Stovall

Nissan, 224 Ga. App. 295, 480 S.E.2d 322, 1997 Ga. App. LEXIS 50 (1997). No legal duty to consumer. - Trial court erred by denying a franchisor’s motion for summary judgment with regard to a consumer’s negligence claim predicated on the Franchise Practices Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-620 et seq., as the Act did not impose a legal duty upon the franchisor to prevent a franchisee from presenting an unreasonable risk of harm to members of the public like the consumer. DaimlerChrysler Motors Co. v. Clemente, 294 Ga. App. 38, 668 S.E.2d 737, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 1057 (2008).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1997–2008 · leading case: DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC v. Clemente, 668 S.E.2d 737 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

DaimlerChrysler Motors Co., LLC v. Clemente, 668 S.E.2d 737 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “Among other things, it provides that a franchisor must act in good faith in its relationship with its franchisee (OCGA §§ 10-1-631 (a) (1); 10-1-662 (a) (7)); sets forth the circumstances and procedural requirements under which a franchisor may terminate the franchise agreement…”

Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp. v. Stovall Nissan, Inc., 480 S.E.2d 322 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 10-1-631. All of the definitions for Article 22, in which the GDDCA appears, are contained in OCGA § 10-1-622, which defines “franchisor” as: “[a]ny person, resident or nonresident, who directly or indirectly licenses or otherwise authorizes one or more dealers to use a…”

Hickman v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 982 F. Supp. 881 (N.D. Ga. 1997). · cites it 3× “Hickman’s Complaint alleges violation of the Georgia Motor Vehicle Dealer’s Day in Court Act, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-631. The Motor Vehicle Dealer’s Day in Court Act, allows a dealer to recover damages from a franchisor who fails “.”

Coffee v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Ga. 1998). · cites it 2× “In general terms, O.C.G.A. § 10-1-631 makes it unlawful for a “franchisor” to fail to act in good faith in its relationship with a motor vehicle dealer.”

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.