Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 118 of 1981
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1567 (2026)

Cancellation, termination, nonrenewal, or discontinuance of dealer agreement; conditions; existence of good cause; failure to comply with agreement; notification; evidence in writing.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MOTOR VEHICLE FRANCHISE ACT


Act 118 of 1981


445.1567 Cancellation, termination, nonrenewal, or discontinuance of dealer agreement; conditions; existence of good cause; failure to comply with agreement; notification; evidence in writing.

Sec. 7.

    (1) Notwithstanding any agreement, a manufacturer or distributor shall not cancel, terminate, fail to renew, or refuse to continue any dealer agreement with a new motor vehicle dealer unless the manufacturer or distributor meets all of the following:

    (a) Has satisfied the notice requirement of section 10.

    (b) Has acted in good faith.

    (c) Has good cause for the cancellation, termination, nonrenewal, or discontinuance.

    (2) Notwithstanding any agreement, good cause exists for the purposes of a termination, cancellation, nonrenewal, or discontinuance under subsection (1)(c) when both of the following occur:

    (a) There is a failure by the new motor vehicle dealer to comply with a provision of the dealer agreement and the provision is both reasonable and of material significance to the relationship between the manufacturer or distributor and the new motor vehicle dealer.

    (b) Unless otherwise agreed or if the dealer is participating in a performance improvement plan or program, the manufacturer or distributor provided the required notification under section 10 not more than 2 years after the date on which the manufacturer first acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the failure.

    (3) If the failure of a new motor vehicle dealer to comply with a provision of the dealer agreement relates to the performance of the new motor vehicle dealer in sales or service, good cause exists for the purposes of a termination, cancellation, nonrenewal, or discontinuance under subsection (1) when the new motor vehicle dealer fails to effectively carry out the performance provisions of the dealer agreement if all of the following have occurred:

    (a) The new motor vehicle dealer was given written notice by the manufacturer or distributor of the failure.

    (b) The notification stated that the notice of failure of performance was provided under this act and, if requested in writing by the dealer, the manufacturer provided written information indicating the methodology and data the manufacturer or distributor used to measure the new motor vehicle dealer's performance. However, this subdivision does not require the manufacturer to disclose any proprietary or confidential information or other information if disclosure is prohibited by law.

    (c) The new motor vehicle dealer was afforded a reasonable opportunity to exert good faith efforts to carry out the dealer agreement.

    (d) The failure continued for more than 180 days after the date notification was given under subdivision (a).

    (e) The new motor vehicle dealer was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence to the manufacturer or distributor demonstrating the effect of local market conditions that materially and adversely affected the dealer's performance.

    (f) If the manufacturer used a survey or index to measure the performance of a new motor vehicle dealer, the survey or index was based on a reasonable sampling of the measured performance criteria.

    (4) Before a final determination by a manufacturer or distributor that a new motor vehicle dealer has failed to achieve any performance criteria that are the basis to cancel, terminate, fail to renew, or refuse to continue any dealer agreement under this section, the manufacturer or distributor must provide the new motor vehicle dealer an opportunity to present, in writing, evidence that demonstrates the effect of local market conditions that materially and adversely affected the dealer's performance.

    (5) If a manufacturer makes a final decision to terminate, cancel, nonrenew, or discontinue a dealer agreement without complying with subsection (3)(b) or (e), or does not in good faith evaluate the effect of the local market conditions presented by the dealer in writing, good cause does not exist for purposes of terminating, canceling, nonrenewing, or discontinuing a dealer agreement.

History: 1981, Act 118, Imd. Eff. July 19, 1981 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 668, Eff. Mar. 28, 2019

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014). “1582a, which provides: The 1998 amendments to this act that added this section apply to agreements in existence on the effective date of this section and to agreements entered into or renewed after the effective date of this section.”
Gen. Aviation, Inc. v. The Cessna Aircraft Co., 915 F.2d 1038 (6th Cir. 1990). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1567 provides in relevant part: (1) notwithstanding any agreement, a manufacturer or distributor shall not cancel, terminate, fail to renew, or refuse to continue any dealer agreement with a new motor Vehicle dealer unless the manufacturer or distributor…”
Chrysler Grp. LLC v. Fox Hills Motor Sales, Inc., 776 F.3d 411 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “” See Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1567 (requiring “good cause”); Nev.”
Fred Lavery Co. v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 99 F. App'x 585 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 6× “Under Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.1567 (1), a manufacturer may not cancel, terminate, fail to renew, or refuse to continue any dealer agreement with a new motor vehicle dealer unless the manufacturer or distributor has complied with all of the following: (a) Satisfied the notice…”
Mt. Clemens Auto Ctr. Inc. v. Hyundai Motor Am., 897 F. Supp. 2d 570 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 6× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1567 (3). Otherwise, a manufacturer may terminate a dealer franchise if (1) the dealer failed to comply with a provision of the dealer agreement, (2) the provision is reasonable and of material significance to the relationship between the manufacturer and…”
McDonald Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 418 N.W.2d 716 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “MCL 445.1567; MSA 19.856(27). However, the instant action was brought pursuant to § 16 of the act and not pursuant to § 7.”
Mt. Clemens Auto Ctr., Inc. v. Hyundai Motor Am., 844 F. Supp. 2d 804 (E.D. Mich. 2011). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1567 (3)(d). If the cause for termination is a “general” breach of the dealership agreement, the manufacturer must provide notice “not less than 90 days prior to the effective date of the termination.”
Paw Paw Wine Distributors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 550 (W.D. Mich. 1988). · cites it 2× “The Court of Appeals held that since termination could not occur until August 5 and the law became effective on July 11, the franchisee was entitled to the protections conferred by the new legislation.”
TRBR, Inc. d/b/a Superior Buick GMC v. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. d/b/a GM Fin. (E.D. Mich. 2021). · cites it 3× “Law § 445.1567(1) (emphasis added). Because Plaintiffs have not alleged that GM cancelled or terminated a dealer agreement, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for cancellation under the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act.”
TRBR, Inc. d/b/a Superior Buick GMC v. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. d/b/a GM Fin. (E.D. Mich. 2021). · cites it 2× “Counts I and II are based on Section 445.1567(1), which addresses cancellation of a dealer agreement.”
Bd. of Trs. of the City of Pontiac v. City of Pontiac, 912 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. 2018). “2d 78 (noting that MCL 445.1567(1) - (2), MCL 445.1568, and MCL 445.”
Colonial Chevrolet Co., Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). “Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.1567 . Michigan law provided that the following alone did not constitute good cause for termination: a change in ownership of the dealership, refusal of the dealership to purchase or accept delivery of any automobile parts; or if the owner of the…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1567(1) — 6 cases
TRBR, Inc. d/b/a Superior Buick GMC v. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. d/b/a GM Fin. (E.D. Mich. 2021). “Law § 445.1567(1) (emphasis added). Because Plaintiffs have not alleged that GM cancelled or terminated a dealer agreement, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim for cancellation under the Motor Vehicle Franchise Act.”
TRBR, Inc. d/b/a Superior Buick GMC v. Americredit Fin. Servs., Inc. d/b/a GM Fin. (E.D. Mich. 2021). “Counts I and II are based on Section 445.1567(1), which addresses cancellation of a dealer agreement.”
Paw Paw Wine Distributors, Inc. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 34 F. Supp. 2d 550 (W.D. Mich. 1988). “The Court of Appeals held that since termination could not occur until August 5 and the law became effective on July 11, the franchisee was entitled to the protections conferred by the new legislation.”
Bd. of Trs. of the City of Pontiac v. City of Pontiac, 912 N.W.2d 195 (Mich. 2018). “2d 78 (noting that MCL 445.1567(1) - (2), MCL 445.1568, and MCL 445.”
Spine Specialists of Michigan Pc v. Memberselect Ins. Co. (Mich. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1567(l) — 1 case
Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 496 Mich. 26 (Mich. 2014). “1582a, which provides: The 1998 amendments to this act that added this section apply to agreements in existence on the effective date of this section and to agreements entered into or renewed after the effective date of this section.”
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.