Minn. Stat. » CHAPTER 80E. MOTOR VEHICLE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION
Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 80E.07 (2026)

Cancellation, Termination, Or Nonrenewal; Limitations

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

Subdivision 1.Circumstances not constituting good cause.

Notwithstanding the terms of any franchise agreement or waiver to the contrary, the following examples represent circumstances which do not by themselves constitute good cause for the termination, cancellation, or nonrenewal of a franchise:

(a) a change of ownership of the new motor vehicle dealer's dealership. This paragraph does not authorize any change in ownership which would have the effect of the sale of the franchise without the manufacturer's or distributor's consent, but consent shall not in any case be unreasonably withheld. The burden of establishing the reasonableness is on the franchisor;

(b) the fact that the new motor vehicle dealer refused to purchase or accept delivery of any new motor vehicle parts, accessories, or any other commodity or services not ordered by the new motor vehicle dealer, other than parts necessary to conduct recall campaigns or perform warranty service;

(c) the fact that the new motor vehicle dealer owns, invests in, participates in the management of, holds a license for the sale of another make or line of new motor vehicle, or has established another make or line of new motor vehicle in the same dealership facilities as those of the manufacturer; provided, that the new motor vehicle dealer maintains a reasonable line of credit for each make or line of new motor vehicle, and that the new motor vehicle dealer remains in substantial compliance with the terms and conditions of the franchise and with any reasonable capital, credit, or facilities' requirements of the manufacturer; or

(d) a change in the location of the new motor vehicle dealership. This paragraph does not authorize a change in location without the manufacturer's or distributor's consent, but consent shall not in any case be unreasonably withheld. The burden of establishing reasonableness is on the franchisor.

Subd. 2.Burden of proof.

The manufacturer has the burden of proving that it acted in good faith; that the notice requirements have been complied with; and that there was good cause for the franchise termination, cancellation, or nonrenewal.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown's, LLC, 563 F.3d 312 (8th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown's, LLC, 563 F.3d 312 (8th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 80E.07(l)(c) (prohibiting termination of a dealership agreement solely for a dealer’s carrying additional lines); id.”
Metro Motors v. Nissan Motor Corp., 339 F.3d 746 (8th Cir. 2003). · cites it 10× “" Minn. Stat. § 80E.07, subd. 1(c). Metro asked the district court to find Nissan in violation of the Act, to declare exclusivity provisions unenforceable in Minnesota, and to award attorney fees under section 80E.”
Dorso Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Am. Body & Trailer, Inc., 464 N.W.2d 551 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “It cites provisions of chapter 80E concerning burden of proof, damages and attorney fees, Minn.Stat. §§ 80E.07, .09, .17, which it contends are very different from any theory alleged in Dorso's first complaint.”
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Allen Interchange LLC (D. Minn. 2025). · cites it 4× “Allen next argues that if TMS’s dealer agreements prohibit authorized dealers from purchasing Toyota parts from anyone other than TMS, that conflicts with public policy favoring competition as reflected in Minn. Stat. § 80E.07, subd. 1(b). Allen argues that this statute renders…”
Wayzata Nissan, LLC v. Nissan North Am., Inc., Stephen J. McDaniels, 875 N.W.2d 279 (2016). “, Minn.Stat. §§ 80E.07, subd. 1(a) (referring to a “change in ownership of the .”
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown's, LLC (8th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 80E.07(1)(c) (prohibiting termination of a dealership agreement solely for a dealer's carrying additional lines); id.”
Minn. Stat. § 80E.07(1)(c): 1 case
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown's, LLC (8th Cir. 2009). “See Minn. Stat. § 80E.07(1)(c) (prohibiting termination of a dealership agreement solely for a dealer's carrying additional lines); id.”
Minn. Stat. § 80E.07(l)(c): 1 case
Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown's, LLC, 563 F.3d 312 (8th Cir. 2009). “See Minn.Stat. § 80E.07(l)(c) (prohibiting termination of a dealership agreement solely for a dealer’s carrying additional lines); id.”
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.