New Hampshire Revised Statutes
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 357-C:9 (2026)
Limitations on Establishing or Relocating Dealerships
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NH-GCgc.nh.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
357-C:9 Limitations on Establishing or Relocating Dealerships. –
I. In the event that a manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof seeks to enter into a franchise establishing an additional new motor vehicle dealership or relocating an existing new motor vehicle dealership within a relevant market area where the same line make is then represented, the manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof shall first give written notice to the New Hampshire motor vehicle industry board and each new motor vehicle dealer of such line make in the relevant market area of the intention to establish an additional dealership or to relocate an existing dealership within that market area. Within 45 days of receiving such notice or within 45 days after the end of any appeal procedure provided by the manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof, any such new motor vehicle dealership may file a protest with the New Hampshire motor vehicle industry board to the establishing or relocating of the new motor vehicle dealership. A copy shall be served on the manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof within the 45-day period. When such protest is filed, the manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof may not establish or relocate the proposed new motor vehicle dealership until the board has held a hearing, nor thereafter if the board determines that there is good cause for not permitting such new motor vehicle dealership. For purposes of this paragraph, the reopening in a relevant market area of a new motor vehicle dealership that has not been in operation for one year or more shall be deemed the establishment of an additional new motor vehicle dealership.
II. In determining whether good cause has been established for not entering into or relocating an additional franchise for the same line make, the board shall consider the existing circumstances, including, but not limited to:
(a) The permanency of the investment;
(b) Any effect on the retail new motor vehicle business and the consuming public in the relevant market area;
(c) Whether it is injurious or beneficial to the public welfare for an additional new motor vehicle dealership to be established;
(d) Whether the new motor vehicle dealers of the same line make in that relevant market area are providing adequate competition and convenient consumer care for the motor vehicles of the line make in the market area which shall include the adequacy of motor vehicle sales and service facilities, equipment, supply of motor vehicle parts, and qualified service personnel;
(e) Whether the establishment of an additional new motor vehicle dealership would increase competition, and therefore be in the public interest; and
(f) Growth or decline in population and new motor vehicle registration in the relevant market area.
III. At any hearing conducted by the New Hampshire motor vehicle industry board under this section, the manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof seeking to establish an additional new motor vehicle dealership or relocate an existing new motor vehicle dealership shall have the burden of proof in establishing that good cause exists and that it acted in good faith.
IV. In the event that a manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division is seeking to establish a new dealership rather than relocating an existing dealership, in addition to the definition of market area in RSA 357-C:1, XXI, in no case shall a franchisee's relevant market area be less than the area within a radius of 15 miles from any boundary of the dealership.
I. In the event that a manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof seeks to enter into a franchise establishing an additional new motor vehicle dealership or relocating an existing new motor vehicle dealership within a relevant market area where the same line make is then represented, the manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof shall first give written notice to the New Hampshire motor vehicle industry board and each new motor vehicle dealer of such line make in the relevant market area of the intention to establish an additional dealership or to relocate an existing dealership within that market area. Within 45 days of receiving such notice or within 45 days after the end of any appeal procedure provided by the manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof, any such new motor vehicle dealership may file a protest with the New Hampshire motor vehicle industry board to the establishing or relocating of the new motor vehicle dealership. A copy shall be served on the manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof within the 45-day period. When such protest is filed, the manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof may not establish or relocate the proposed new motor vehicle dealership until the board has held a hearing, nor thereafter if the board determines that there is good cause for not permitting such new motor vehicle dealership. For purposes of this paragraph, the reopening in a relevant market area of a new motor vehicle dealership that has not been in operation for one year or more shall be deemed the establishment of an additional new motor vehicle dealership.
II. In determining whether good cause has been established for not entering into or relocating an additional franchise for the same line make, the board shall consider the existing circumstances, including, but not limited to:
(a) The permanency of the investment;
(b) Any effect on the retail new motor vehicle business and the consuming public in the relevant market area;
(c) Whether it is injurious or beneficial to the public welfare for an additional new motor vehicle dealership to be established;
(d) Whether the new motor vehicle dealers of the same line make in that relevant market area are providing adequate competition and convenient consumer care for the motor vehicles of the line make in the market area which shall include the adequacy of motor vehicle sales and service facilities, equipment, supply of motor vehicle parts, and qualified service personnel;
(e) Whether the establishment of an additional new motor vehicle dealership would increase competition, and therefore be in the public interest; and
(f) Growth or decline in population and new motor vehicle registration in the relevant market area.
III. At any hearing conducted by the New Hampshire motor vehicle industry board under this section, the manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division thereof seeking to establish an additional new motor vehicle dealership or relocate an existing new motor vehicle dealership shall have the burden of proof in establishing that good cause exists and that it acted in good faith.
IV. In the event that a manufacturer, distributor, or branch or division is seeking to establish a new dealership rather than relocating an existing dealership, in addition to the definition of market area in RSA 357-C:1, XXI, in no case shall a franchisee's relevant market area be less than the area within a radius of 15 miles from any boundary of the dealership.
Source. 1981, 477:2. 1996, 263:7. 2001, 209:4, 5, eff. Jan. 1, 2002. 2009, 20:14-16, eff. May 6, 2009. 2013, 130:17, eff. Sept. 23, 2013.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Deere & Co. v. State, 130 A.3d 1197 (N.H. 2015).
Deere & Co. v. State, 130 A.3d 1197 (N.H. 2015). “at 101 (describing California Automobile Franchise Act, a law similar to RSA chapter 357-C); see RSA 357-C:9 (Supp. 2015). To enforce this prohibition, RSA chapter 357-C requires a motor vehicle manufacturer that seeks to establish a new motor vehicle dealership or relocate an…”
M & D CYCLES, INC. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 208 F. Supp. 2d 115 (D.N.H. 2002). “Depot claimed that Honda violated RSA 357-C:9,1, by proposing to establish a new dealership in Rochester, which Depot contended was within its “relevant market area,” without giving Depot adequate notice as required by that section.”
New Hampshire Auto. Dealers Ass'n v. Gen. Motors Corp., 620 F. Supp. 1150 (D.N.H. 1985). “RSA 357-C:3 III(i) prevents manufacturers in the position of GM from granting “a competitive franchise in the relevant market area previously granted to another franchise” unless the provisions of RSA 357-C:9 have been complied with. In turn, RSA 357-C:9 requires that notice of…”
STIHL, Inc. v. State, 126 A.3d 1192 (N.H. 2015). “” See RSA 357-C:9, I (Supp. 2014). If another dealer objected, the Board could approve sales at the new location only after evaluating, among other things, “[w]hether the new [equipment] dealers of the same line make in that relevant market area are providing adequate…”
Monmouth Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., 509 A.2d 161 (N.J. 1986). “36365 (1977); N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 357-C:9 (1984); N.C.Gen.”
Ford Motor v. Meredith Motor, 2000 DNH 186 (D.N.H. 2000). “§ 357-C:9 I . The affected dealer may then challenge the proposed addition or relocation by filing a protest with the Board.”
Autofair 1477, L.P. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 166 N.H. 599 (N.H. 2014). “” Under the plain language of the statute, assuming, without deciding, that Autofair is a “prevailing party,” Autofair is entitled to attorney’s fees only if AHM violated the Dealership Act.”
M&D Cycle v. Am. Honda Motor, 2002 DNH 127 (D.N.H. 2002). “Depot claimed that Honda violated RSA 357-C:9, I , by proposing to establish a new dealership in Rochester, which 5 Depot contended was within its “relevant market area,” without giving Depot adequate notice as required by that section.”
Kia Am., Inc. v. DMO Auto Acquisitions, LLC (D.N.H. 2025). “, RSA 357-C:9. The Board is only empowered to hear claims arising under chapter 357-C, see RSA 357-C:12, I(a), and does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a franchisee’s conduct toward its manufacturer violated federal law, or gives rise to common law liability.”
Kia Am., Inc. v. P DMO Auto Acquisitions, LLC et al., 2025 DNH 046 (D.N.H. 2025). “, RSA 357-C:9. The Board is only empowered to hear claims arising under chapter 357-C, see RSA 357-C:12, I(a), and does not have jurisdiction to determine whether a franchisee’s conduct toward its manufacturer violated 32 federal law, or gives rise to common law liability.”
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.