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

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1582 (2026)

Act inapplicable to dealer outside Michigan.

✓ 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


445.1582 Act inapplicable to dealer outside Michigan.

Sec. 22.

    Notwithstanding the terms, provisions, or conditions of a dealer agreement, this act shall have no application to dealers located outside the state of Michigan.

History: 1981, Act 118, Imd. Eff. July 19, 1981

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2021 · leading case: Rochester Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 287 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rochester Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 287 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2002). “) Not only does the statute provide, on its face, that it does not apply to dealers located outside the state of Michigan, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1582 , but the release at issue here is not “prospective”: It releases Ford from all claims “by reason of anything whatsoever…”
Ford Motor Co. v. Ghreiwati Auto, 945 F. Supp. 2d 851 (E.D. Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “But the MDA has “no application to dealers located outside the state of Michigan,” “[njotwithstanding the terms, provisions, or conditions of a dealer agreement!!]” Mich.Comp.Laws § 445.1582.' MDA § 20, an action for damages, applies only to a “new motor vehicle dealer.”
Arabian Motors Grp. W.L.L. v. Ford Motor Co., 228 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Mich. 2017). · cites it 2× “, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1582 ("Notwithstanding the terms, provisions, or conditions of a dealer agreement, [the Michigan Dealer Act] shall have no application to dealers located outside the state of Michigan.”
Bill Call Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 830 F. Supp. 1053 (N.D. Ohio 1993). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1582 (providing that the Michigan dealer’s' statute “shall have no application to dealers outside the State of Michigan.”
Greensboro Ford, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 568 S.E.2d 758 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). “See Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.1582 . Although Greensboro Ford’s complaint is drafted generally, the Michigan statute itself indicates that its law should not control.”
Veritas Auto. Mach. v. Fca Int'l Operations (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “116(I)(1) (“If the pleadings show that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or if the affidavits or other proofs show that there 4 The statute expressly precludes application “to dealers located outside the State of Michigan.”
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.