Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 10, § 1182 (2026)

Public policy

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any contract or part thereof or practice thereunder in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed against public policy and shall be void and unenforceable. [PL 1975, c. 573 (NEW).]

The Legislature finds that the manufacture, distribution and sale of motor vehicles in the State vitally affects the general economy of the State and the public interest and public welfare; that the manufacturers of motor vehicles whose physical manufacturing facilities are not located within the State and distributors are doing business in the State through their control over and relationship and transactions with their dealers in the State; that the geographical location of the State makes it necessary to ensure the availability of motor vehicles and parts and dependable service for motor vehicles throughout the State to protect and preserve the transportation system, the public safety and welfare and the investments of its residents. The Legislature declares, on the basis of these findings, that it is necessary to regulate and to license motor vehicle manufacturers and distributors and their branches and representatives, motor vehicle dealers and any other person engaged in the business of selling or purchasing vehicles in the State in order to prevent frauds, impositions and other abuses against residents and to protect and preserve the economy, the investments of residents, the public safety and the transportation system of the State. [PL 1997, c. 521, §27 (NEW).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1975, c. 573 (NEW). PL 1997, c. 521, §27 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: Acadia Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 44 F.3d 1050 (1st Cir. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Acadia Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 44 F.3d 1050 (1st Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “Claims under 10 M.R.S.A. § 1182 Finally, the Dealers assert that the district court erred in dismissing their claims that *1060 Ford’s warranty surcharge violated public policy within the meaning of 10 M.”

Ford Motor Co. v. Darling's, 2016 ME 171 (Me. 2016). “First, 10 M.R.S. § 1182 provides that “[a]ny contract or part thereof or practice thereunder in violation of any provision of [the Dealers Act] shall be deemed against public policy and shall be void and unenforceable.”

Acadia Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 844 F. Supp. 819 (D. Me. 1994). · cites it 2× “” The Dealers further assert that Ford’s actions “violate[d] public policy within the meaning *832 of 10 M.R.S.A. § 1182.” Plaintiffs have not produced any persuasive argument to support these contentions, and therefore summary judgment is granted to Defendant on these…”

All. of Auto. Mfrs. v. Gwadosky, 304 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Me. 2004). “10 M.R.S.A. § 1182. Although enacted in 1997 before the passage of L.”

Darling's v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 57 F. Supp. 3d 68 (D. Me. 2014). “See 10 M.R.S. § 1182 (public policy provision of the Dealers Act).”

Darling's Auto Mall v. Gen. Motors LLC, 2016 ME 48 (Me. 2016). “”); 10 M.R.S. § 1182 (“Any contract or part thereof or *821 practice thereunder in violation of any provision of this chapter shall be deemed against public policy and shall be void and unenforceable.”

N.A. Burkitt, Inc. v. Champion Road Mach. Ltd., 2000 ME 209 (Me. 2000). “Graders are bulky and heavy, ranging from 9420 to over 40,000 pounds, and come equipped with large traction tires that are generally not suitable for transportation on Maine’s public ways.”

FCA US LLC v. Sec'y of State (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “rnl right is void and unenforceable pmsuanl to 10 M.R.S.A. § 1182. Here, PCA at least raised the question of whethel' Section 1176, while not regui1'ing verification, permits a fra11chisor to impose-tlu·ough agreement-reasonable verification of a fhmchisee's retail rnte…”

Darling's Bangor Ford v. Ford Motor Co. (Me. Super. Ct 2018). “If Darling's is entitled to reimbursement for its administrative labor costs under section 1176-which the trial court ruled below, and this Court affirms in Patt I.”

Ford Motor Co. v. Darling's (Me. Super. Ct 2022). “Absent "good cause," Ford could not discontinue the BOC without violating section 1174(3)(B) and breaching the SSA.”

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.