Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 325E. TRADE PRACTICES
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 325E.0682 (2026)

Violations

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) It is a violation of sections 325E.068 to 325E.0684 for an equipment manufacturer to coerce an equipment dealer to accept delivery of heavy and utility equipment that the equipment dealer has not voluntarily ordered.

(b) It is a violation of sections 325E.068 to 325E.0684 for an equipment manufacturer to:

(1) condition or attempt to condition the sale of equipment on a requirement that the equipment dealer also purchase other goods or services; except that an equipment manufacturer may require the dealer to purchase all parts reasonably necessary to maintain the quality of operation in the field of any equipment used in the trade area and telecommunications necessary to communicate with the equipment manufacturer;

(2) coerce an equipment dealer into a refusal to purchase the equipment manufactured by another equipment manufacturer;

(3) discriminate in the prices charged for equipment of like grade and quality sold by the equipment manufacturer to similarly situated equipment dealers. This clause does not prevent the use of differentials that make only due allowance for difference in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery or for the differing methods or quantities in which the equipment is sold or delivered, by the equipment manufacturer; or

(4) attempt or threaten to terminate, cancel, fail to renew, or substantially change the competitive circumstances of the dealership agreement if the attempt or threat is based on the results of a natural disaster, a labor dispute, or other circumstance beyond the dealer's control.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: River Valley Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Interstate Companies, 704 N.W.2d 154 (Minn. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
River Valley Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Interstate Companies, 704 N.W.2d 154 (Minn. 2005). · cites it 36× “See Minn.Stat. § 325E.0682(b)(2) (2004) (stating that it is a violation of HUEMDA for an equipment manufacturer to "coerce an equipment dealer into a refusal to purchase the equipment manufactured by another equipment manufacturer").”
River Valley Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Interstate Companies, Inc., 680 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “River Valley also argues that construing good cause to include conduct over which the dealer has no control would be inconsistent with Minn.Stat. § 325E.0682(b)(4) (2002), which states: It 'is a violation of sections 325E.”
Minnesota Supply Co. v. Raymond Corp., 472 F.3d 524 (8th Cir. 2006). “” See Minn.Stat. § 325E.0682(b)(1) (making it a violation of HUEMDA to “condition or attempt to condition” the sale of equipment on the purchase of other goods (emphasis added), (b)(4) (making it a violation of HUEMDA to “attempt or threaten to terminate” the dealership…”
NACCO Materials Handling Grp., Inc. v. Toyota Materials Handling USA, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d 597 (W.D. Tenn. 2004). “" Minn.Stat. Ann. § 325E.0682 (2004). Furthermore, “[a] term of a dealership agreement .”
Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. Hayden-Murphy Equip. Co. (M.D. Tenn. 2023). “circumstance[s] beyond the dealer’s control,” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325E.0682(b)(4). (Id. ¶¶ 91–97.”
Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. Hayden-Murphy Equip. Co. (M.D. Tenn. 2024). “circumstance[s] beyond the dealer’s control,” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325E.0682(b)(4). (Id. ¶¶ 91–97.”
Minn. Stat. § 325E.0682(b)(1): 1 case
Minnesota Supply Co. v. Raymond Corp., 472 F.3d 524 (8th Cir. 2006). “” See Minn.Stat. § 325E.0682(b)(1) (making it a violation of HUEMDA to “condition or attempt to condition” the sale of equipment on the purchase of other goods (emphasis added), (b)(4) (making it a violation of HUEMDA to “attempt or threaten to terminate” the dealership…”
Minn. Stat. § 325E.0682(b)(2): 1 case
River Valley Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Interstate Companies, 704 N.W.2d 154 (Minn. 2005). “See Minn.Stat. § 325E.0682(b)(2) (2004) (stating that it is a violation of HUEMDA for an equipment manufacturer to "coerce an equipment dealer into a refusal to purchase the equipment manufactured by another equipment manufacturer").”
Minn. Stat. § 325E.0682(b)(4): 4 cases
River Valley Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Interstate Companies, 704 N.W.2d 154 (Minn. 2005). “See Minn.Stat. § 325E.0682(b)(2) (2004) (stating that it is a violation of HUEMDA for an equipment manufacturer to "coerce an equipment dealer into a refusal to purchase the equipment manufactured by another equipment manufacturer").”
River Valley Truck Ctr., Inc. v. Interstate Companies, Inc., 680 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “River Valley also argues that construing good cause to include conduct over which the dealer has no control would be inconsistent with Minn.Stat. § 325E.0682(b)(4) (2002), which states: It 'is a violation of sections 325E.”
Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. Hayden-Murphy Equip. Co. (M.D. Tenn. 2023). “circumstance[s] beyond the dealer’s control,” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325E.0682(b)(4). (Id. ¶¶ 91–97.”
Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. Hayden-Murphy Equip. Co. (M.D. Tenn. 2024). “circumstance[s] beyond the dealer’s control,” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325E.0682(b)(4). (Id. ¶¶ 91–97.”
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.