Sec. 2. It is unlawful for any franchisor who has
entered into any franchise agreement with a franchisee who is either a
resident of Indiana or a nonresident operating a franchise in Indiana to
engage in any of the following acts and practices in relation to the
agreement:
(1) Coercing the franchisee to:
(i) order or accept delivery of any goods, supplies, inventories,
or services which are neither necessary to the operation of the
franchise, required by the franchise agreement, required by law,
nor voluntarily ordered by the franchisee;
(ii) order or accept delivery of any goods offered for sale by the
franchisee which includes modifications or accessories which
are not included in the base price of those goods as publicly
advertised by the franchisor;
(iii) participate in an advertising campaign or contest, any
promotional campaign, promotional materials, display
decorations, or materials at an expense to the franchisee over
and above the maximum percentage of gross monthly sales or
the maximum absolute sum required to be spent by the
franchisee provided for in the franchise agreement; in the
absence of such provision for required advertising expenditures
in the franchise agreement, no such participation may be
required; or
(iv) enter into any agreement with the franchisor or any
designee of the franchisor, or do any other act prejudicial to the
franchisee, by threatening to cancel or fail to renew any
agreement between the franchisee and the franchisor. Notice in
good faith to any franchisee of the franchisee's violation of the
terms or provisions of a franchise or agreement does not
constitute a violation of this subdivision.
(2) Refusing or failing to deliver in reasonable quantities and
within a reasonable time after receipt of an order from a
franchisee for any goods, supplies, inventories, or services which
the franchisor has agreed to supply to the franchisee, unless the
failure is caused by acts or causes beyond the control of the
franchisor.
(3) Denying the surviving spouse, heirs, or estate of a deceased
franchisee the opportunity to participate in the ownership of the
franchise under a valid franchise agreement for a reasonable time
after the death of the franchisee, provided that the surviving
spouse, heirs, or estate maintains all standards and obligations of
the franchise.
(4) Establishing a franchisor-owned outlet engaged in a
substantially identical business to that of the franchisee within the
exclusive territory granted the franchisee by the franchise
agreement or, if no exclusive territory is designated, competing
unfairly with the franchisee within a reasonable area. However,
a franchisor shall not be considered to be competing when
operating a business either temporarily for a reasonable period of
time, or in a bona fide retail operation which is for sale to any
qualified independent person at a fair and reasonable price, or in
a bona fide relationship in which an independent person has made
a significant investment subject to loss in the business operation
and can reasonably expect to acquire full ownership of such
business on reasonable terms and conditions.
(5) Discriminating unfairly among its franchisees or unreasonably
failing or refusing to comply with any terms of a franchise
agreement.
(6) Obtaining money, goods, services, or any other benefit from
any other person with whom the franchisee does business, on
account of, or in relation to, the transaction between the
franchisee and the other person, other than compensation for
services rendered by the franchisor, unless the benefit is promptly
accounted for, and transmitted to the franchisee.
(7) Increasing prices of goods provided by the franchisor which
the franchisee had ordered for retail consumers prior to the
franchisee's receipt of a written official price increase notification.
Price increases caused by conformity to a state or federal law, the
revaluation of the United States dollar in the case of foreign-made
goods or pursuant to the franchise agreement are not subject to
this subdivision.
(8) Using deceptive advertising or engaging in deceptive acts in
connection with the franchise or the franchisor's business.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.116, SEC.1. Amended by
P.L.233-1985, SEC.6.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case:
Kinnard v. Shoney's, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 781 (M.D. Tenn. 2000).
Kinnard v. Shoney's, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 781 (M.D. Tenn. 2000).
· cites it 8× “The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiffs have not presented any evidence to support their claim under Indiana Code § 23-2-2.7-2(1)(iii). As the Court has determined that the plaintiffs were given ample time to conduct discovery and that the plaintiffs shall…”
Canada Dry Corp. v. Nehi Beverage Co., Inc. Of Indianapolis, 723 F.2d 512 (7th Cir. 1983).
· cites it 3× “01 compensatory damages on its breach of contract claim; (2) awarded $25,-000 to Canada Dry for trademark infringement; (3) awarded $8,640 to Canada Dry for amounts owing on account; (4) awarded $200,000 to Nehi on its claim of unlawful discrimination under the Indiana Deceptive…”
Hubbard Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 422 F. Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Ind. 2006).
· cites it 8× “Indiana Code § 23-2-2.7-2(l)(iv) prohibits a franchisor from coercing the franchisee to “enter into any agreement with the franchisor .”
Anderson v. Indianapolis Indiana AAMCO Dealers Advert. Pool, 678 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Similarly, Anderson and Haines’ contention that the advertising agreement violates the Franchise Act’s prohibition against a franchisor "discriminating unfairly among its franchisees" is barred by the Act’s two year statute of limitations and must fail.”
Implement Serv., Inc. v. Tecumseh Prods. Co., 726 F. Supp. 1171 (S.D. Ind. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Count III alleged the defendants were illegally discriminating against the plaintiff in violation of the Ind.Code Ann. § 23-2-2.7-2 (Burns 1989 Supp.”
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Garner, 688 F. Supp. 435 (N.D. Ind. 1988).
· cites it 2× “Indiana Code 23-2-2.7-2, provides that: It is unlawful for any franchisor who has entered into any franchise agreement with a franchisee who is a resident of Indiana to engage in any of these acts and practices in relation to the agreement: (5) discriminating unfairly among its…”
Hubler Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 193 F.R.D. 574 (S.D. Ind. 2000).
“Plaintiffs, a group of Indiana automobile dealers who sell vehicles manufactured by General Motors (GM), a Delaware corporation, brought this action against GM on behalf of all Indiana dealers alleging that GM’s marketing scheme violates the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practices…”
Craig & Landreth, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d 818 (S.D. Ind. 2010).
· cites it 2× “” I.C. § 23-2-2.7-2(5). In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claim fails as a matter of law because Plaintiffs filed suit after the expiration of the IDF-PA’s statute of limitations.”
Coyle Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North Am., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2021).
· cites it 26× “Summary judgment is entered in favor of NNA on Coyle's claims for breach of contract (Count I), breach of the covenant of good faith under California law (Count IID), violation of Indiana Code § 23-2-2.7-2(1)Gv) (Count V), violation of Indiana Code § 23-2-2.”
— Ind. Code § 23-2-2.7-2(1) — 2 cases
Hubler Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 193 F.R.D. 574 (S.D. Ind. 2000).
“Plaintiffs, a group of Indiana automobile dealers who sell vehicles manufactured by General Motors (GM), a Delaware corporation, brought this action against GM on behalf of all Indiana dealers alleging that GM’s marketing scheme violates the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practices…”
Coyle Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North Am., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2021).
“Summary judgment is entered in favor of NNA on Coyle's claims for breach of contract (Count I), breach of the covenant of good faith under California law (Count IID), violation of Indiana Code § 23-2-2.7-2(1)Gv) (Count V), violation of Indiana Code § 23-2-2.”
— Ind. Code § 23-2-2.7-2(1)(iii) — 1 case
Kinnard v. Shoney's, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 781 (M.D. Tenn. 2000).
“The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiffs have not presented any evidence to support their claim under Indiana Code § 23-2-2.7-2(1)(iii). As the Court has determined that the plaintiffs were given ample time to conduct discovery and that the plaintiffs shall…”
— Ind. Code § 23-2-2.7-2(1)(iv) — 3 cases
Coyle Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North Am., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2021).
“Summary judgment is entered in favor of NNA on Coyle's claims for breach of contract (Count I), breach of the covenant of good faith under California law (Count IID), violation of Indiana Code § 23-2-2.7-2(1)Gv) (Count V), violation of Indiana Code § 23-2-2.”
— Ind. Code § 23-2-2.7-2(2) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 23-2-2.7-2(4) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 23-2-2.7-2(5) — 8 cases
Canada Dry Corp. v. Nehi Beverage Co., Inc. Of Indianapolis, 723 F.2d 512 (7th Cir. 1983).
“01 compensatory damages on its breach of contract claim; (2) awarded $25,-000 to Canada Dry for trademark infringement; (3) awarded $8,640 to Canada Dry for amounts owing on account; (4) awarded $200,000 to Nehi on its claim of unlawful discrimination under the Indiana Deceptive…”
Kinnard v. Shoney's, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 781 (M.D. Tenn. 2000).
“The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiffs have not presented any evidence to support their claim under Indiana Code § 23-2-2.7-2(1)(iii). As the Court has determined that the plaintiffs were given ample time to conduct discovery and that the plaintiffs shall…”
Craig & Landreth, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 744 F. Supp. 2d 818 (S.D. Ind. 2010).
“” I.C. § 23-2-2.7-2(5). In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ claim fails as a matter of law because Plaintiffs filed suit after the expiration of the IDF-PA’s statute of limitations.”
Coyle Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North Am., Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2021).
“Summary judgment is entered in favor of NNA on Coyle's claims for breach of contract (Count I), breach of the covenant of good faith under California law (Count IID), violation of Indiana Code § 23-2-2.7-2(1)Gv) (Count V), violation of Indiana Code § 23-2-2.”
— Ind. Code § 23-2-2.7-2(6) — 1 case
Kinnard v. Shoney's, Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 781 (M.D. Tenn. 2000).
“The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the plaintiffs have not presented any evidence to support their claim under Indiana Code § 23-2-2.7-2(1)(iii). As the Court has determined that the plaintiffs were given ample time to conduct discovery and that the plaintiffs shall…”
— Ind. Code § 23-2-2.7-2(8) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 23-2-2.7-2(l)(iv) — 1 case
Hubbard Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 422 F. Supp. 2d 999 (N.D. Ind. 2006).
“Indiana Code § 23-2-2.7-2(l)(iv) prohibits a franchisor from coercing the franchisee to “enter into any agreement with the franchisor .”
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.