interpreting § 37-5-3 and holding that the “just provocation” standard “requires some sort of misconduct or shortcoming on the part of the dealer,” and rejecting the *863 manufacturer’s argument it could meet the standard where a termination was in good faith
How later courts described this case
- interpreting § 37-5-3 and holding that the “just provocation” standard “requires some sort of misconduct or shortcoming on the part of the dealer,” and rejecting the *863 manufacturer’s argument it could meet the standard where a termination was in good faith
- holding that no fiduciary relationship existed between IH and one of its dealers
- holding "just provocation [under § 37-5-3] requires some sort of misconduct or shortcoming on the part of the dealer."
- upholding summary judgment that no fiduciary relationship existed between International Harvester and one of its dealers
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WUEST, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I still dissent and would grant the petition for rehearing. However, I have no , objection to the majority clarifying their opinion.
I am hereby authorized to state that FOSHEIM, Retired Justice, joins in this dissent.