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

Minn. Stat. § 325E.0683 (2026)

Status Of Inconsistent Agreements

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

A term of a dealership agreement either expressed or implied, including a choice of law provision, that is inconsistent with the terms of sections 325E.068 to 325E.0684 or that purports to waive an equipment manufacturer's compliance with sections 325E.068 to 325E.0684 is void and unenforceable and does not waive any rights that are provided to a person by sections 325E.068 to 325E.0684.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · leading case: Minnesota Supply Co. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Am. Inc., 822 F. Supp. 2d 896 (D. Minn. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Minnesota Supply Co. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Am. Inc., 822 F. Supp. 2d 896 (D. Minn. 2011). · cites it 4× “” Minn. Stat. § 325E.0683. But a “court of competent jurisdiction” is simply any court that would have subject matter and personal jurisdiction.”
NACCO Materials Handling Grp., Inc. v. Toyota Materials Handling USA, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d 597 (W.D. Tenn. 2004). “” Minn.Stat. Ann. § 325E.0683 (2004). 6 . Also comparable to Tennessee law is Wisconsin’s Fair Dealership Law, Wis.”
Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. Hayden-Murphy Equip. Co. (M.D. Tenn. 2023). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325E.0683. The relevant substantive differences between the Tennessee and Minnesota statutes are few.”
Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. Hayden-Murphy Equip. Co. (M.D. Tenn. 2024). “See Minn. Stat. Ann. § 325E.0683. However, the Minnesota statute expressly states that, in the face of a proposed change in ownership or control, the “equipment manufacturer .”
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.