Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1301 (2026)

Part definitions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this part, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Current model" means a model listed in the wholesaler's, manufacturer's or distributor's current sales manual or any supplements thereto;

(2) "Current net price" means the price listed in the supplier's price list or catalogue in effect at the time the contract is cancelled or discontinued, less any applicable trade and cash discounts;

(3) "Inventory" means farm implements and machinery, construction, utility and industrial equipment, consumer products, outdoor power equipment, attachments and repair parts;

(4) "Retailer" means any person, firm or corporation engaged in the business of selling and retailing farm implements and machinery, construction, utility and industrial equipment, outdoor power equipment, attachments or repair parts and shall not include retailers of petroleum products;

(5) "Superseded part" means any part that will provide the same function as a currently available part as of the date of cancellation; and

(6) "Supplier" means any manufacturer, wholesaler, wholesale distributor, or any purchaser of assets or stock of any surviving corporation resulting from a merger or liquidation, any receiver or assignee, or any trustee of the original manufacturer, wholesaler or distributor.

Acts 1999, ch. 193, § 2.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2024 · leading case: Power & Tel. Supply Co., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 268 F. Supp. 2d 981 (W.D. Tenn. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Power & Tel. Supply Co., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 268 F. Supp. 2d 981 (W.D. Tenn. 2003). · cites it 14× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1301, et seq. The Court can conceive of no clearer statement of a fundamental policy of Tennessee to protect such retailers than the statutory enactment invalidating contractual choice of law provisions and requiring the parties to comply with Tennessee…”

Middle Tennessee Assocs., Inc. v. Leeville Motors, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 206 (Tenn. 1991). · cites it 10× “” T.C.A. §§ 47-25-1301 et seq. If so, the statute required the distributor to repurchase the goods in question when the sales agreement was terminated and, therefore, the dealer would not be liable for breach of contract.”

Freightliner of Knoxville, Inc. v. Daimlerchrysler Vans, LLC, 438 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Tenn. 2006). · cites it 11× “] Plaintiffs respond that the provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1301 et seq., amend the above-cited provisions of the Dealer Agreement because the Agreement must be construed according to Tennessee law.”

NACCO Materials Handling Grp., Inc. v. Toyota Materials Handling USA, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d 597 (W.D. Tenn. 2004). · cites it 7× “§ 47-25-1301, et seq.] of a fundamental policy of Tennessee to protect such retailers than the statutory enactment invalidating contractual choice of law provisions and requiring the parties to comply with Tennessee law.”

Cummings, McGowan, & West, Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc., 160 F. App'x 458 (6th Cir. 2005). “193 (codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-25-1301 to -10), directing that “[n]o supplier, directly or through an officer, agent or employee, may terminate, cancel, fail to renew or substantially change the competitive circumstances of a retail agreement without good cause.”

Wirtgen Am., Inc. v. Hayden-Murphy Equip. Co. (M.D. Tenn. 2024). · cites it 2× “, Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1301 (4), (6). The court, therefore, finds this alternative reading of the statute implausible and will treat changes in ownership of Hayden-Murphy, as a business entity, as changes capable of giving rise to good cause under the statute.”

Freightliner v. DaimlerChrysler Vans (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “FOK now only requests that we review the following two aspects of its original claims, both of which are directed solely at DC Vans, not at FLLC: (1) whether it was proper for the district court to dismiss FOK’s claims under the Tennessee Trade Practices Act, Tenn.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1301(3) — 1 case

Power & Tel. Supply Co., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 268 F. Supp. 2d 981 (W.D. Tenn. 2003). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1301, et seq. The Court can conceive of no clearer statement of a fundamental policy of Tennessee to protect such retailers than the statutory enactment invalidating contractual choice of law provisions and requiring the parties to comply with Tennessee…”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1301(4) — 3 cases

NACCO Materials Handling Grp., Inc. v. Toyota Materials Handling USA, Inc., 366 F. Supp. 2d 597 (W.D. Tenn. 2004). “§ 47-25-1301, et seq.] of a fundamental policy of Tennessee to protect such retailers than the statutory enactment invalidating contractual choice of law provisions and requiring the parties to comply with Tennessee law.”

Freightliner of Knoxville, Inc. v. Daimlerchrysler Vans, LLC, 438 F. Supp. 2d 869 (E.D. Tenn. 2006). “] Plaintiffs respond that the provisions of Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-25-1301 et seq., amend the above-cited provisions of the Dealer Agreement because the Agreement must be construed according to Tennessee law.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1301(5) — 1 case

Middle Tennessee Assocs., Inc. v. Leeville Motors, Inc., 803 S.W.2d 206 (Tenn. 1991). “” T.C.A. §§ 47-25-1301 et seq. If so, the statute required the distributor to repurchase the goods in question when the sales agreement was terminated and, therefore, the dealer would not be liable for breach of contract.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-25-1301(6) — 2 cases

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.