New Jersey Statutes
N.J. Stat. § 56:10-9 (2026)
Action against franchisor; defenses
✓ current as of May 2026
It shall be a defense for a franchisor, to any action brought under this act by a franchisee, if it be shown that said franchisee has failed to substantially comply with requirements imposed by the franchise and other agreements ancillary or collateral thereto.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Mall Chevrolet Inc v. Gen. Motors LLC, 99 F.4th 622 (3d Cir. 2024).
Mall Chevrolet Inc v. Gen. Motors LLC, 99 F.4th 622 (3d Cir. 2024). “See N.J. Stat. § 56:10-9. Equipped with the § 56:10-9 defense, GM argued that Mall Chevy’s material breach constituted a failure to substantially comply with the contract, such that Mall Chevy could not sustain its claim to enjoin allegedly unsubstantiated chargebacks.”
Gen. Motors Corp. Chevrolet Motor Div. v. The New A.C. Chevrolet, Inc. Dba the New A.C. Chevrolet, 263 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2001). “See N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:10-9 . Although we could find no New Jersey cases on point, a fair reading of that provision suggests that if a terminated franchisee were to bring an action against its franchisor claiming a violation of § 56:10-5 because the franchisor lacked the…”
Regency Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 723 F. Supp. 250 (D.N.J. 1989). “§ 56:10-9. As with the federal Dealers’ Act, the threshold issue under the New Jersey statute is whether the relationship between GM and Regency was a franchise as defined by the statute.”
Mercedes-Benz of Na v. Dept. of Mv, 455 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). “The trial court stated: [P]laintiffs [Fifth Avenue and Hawkins] assert that application of N.J.Stat. § 56:10-9 to an action to compel franchise transfer pursuant to N.”
Mall Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors LLC (D.N.J. 2021). “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:10-9 . Here, as noted above, we concluded in our February 8, 2021 Memorandum that Mall had materially breached the parties’ Dealer Agreement by seeking and collecting payment from GM for warranty repairs to cars that were never present at its service…”
Ocean City Express Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 3d 503 (D.N.J. 2014). “Consequently, the NJFPA, by its own terms, preserves Defendant’s autonomy in a manner consistent with Section 14501(c)(1). For all of those reasons, the Court does not find at this time that the FAAA Act preempts, as a matter of law, the application of the NJFPA in this action.”
New Jersey Coalition of Auto. Retailers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024). “2 2 N.J.S.A. 56:10-9 provides "[i]t shall be a defense for a franchisor, to any action brought under this act by a franchisee, if it be shown that said franchisee has failed to substantially comply with requirements imposed by the franchise and other agreements ancillary or…”
New Jersey Coalition of Auto. Retailers, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc. (D.N.J. 2023). ““It shall be a defense for a franchisor, to any action brought under this act by a franchisee, if it be shown that said franchisee has failed to substantially comply with requirements imposed by the franchise and other agreements ancillary or collateral thereto.”
Sat Agiyar, LLC v. 7-eleven, Inc. (D.N.J. 2024). “) This issue is dispositive. A franchisor can defend against a Franchise Practices Act claim with a showing that the franchisee “failed to substantially comply with requirements imposed by the franchise.”
Autobar Sys. of N.J. v. Berg Co., LLC (D.N.J. 2025). “§ 56:10-9 (emphasis added). The APA is such an agreement that the parties have demonstrated applies to their relationship.”
New Jersey Coalition of Auto. Retailers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (N.J. 2025). “” To bolster its interpretation of the statute, Ford points to the affirmative defense found in N.J.S.A. 56:10-9 (Section 9), which requires that a defendant franchisor show that the plaintiff franchisee is in breach of the franchise agreement.”
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.