ILNews

Dealership gets court to dismiss claims made by Volvo

Jennifer Nelson
October 12, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Indianapolis has ruled in favor of Andy Mohr Truck Center in two lawsuits stemming from a broken business relationship between the dealer and Volvo Trucks North America.

Volvo Trucks awarded auto dealer Andy Mohr’s Truck Center a contract to sell its trucks in 2010. When the business relationship soured, both parties filed lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana, claiming among other things, breach of contract.

Mohr claims that his award of the Volvo franchise was dependent on the dealer being able to house it and the Mack Truck franchise under one dealership. He said Volvo Trucks and Mack Trucks agreed to it, but that the transactions would have to occur separately. Once he was awarded the Volvo Truck franchise, the Volvo Group then failed to award Mohr the Mack Truck franchise.

Volvo’s suit claims that Mohr and the dealership haven’t fulfilled the “promises, representations and unqualified guarantees” they made, including moving into a new facility and sales goals.

Mohr and Volvo – as defendants in the other’s suit – filed motions to dismiss certain claims. Judge William Lawrence denied Volvo’s motion to dismiss Mohr’s claims of theft under the Indiana Crime Victims’ Act, breach of written contract and breach of oral contract. The judge granted Mohr’s motion to dismiss claims of fraudulent inducement, promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel in Volvo’s action.

Lawrence also ordered Tuesday the Mohr plaintiffs to show cause within 14 days as to why these to cases shouldn’t be consolidated since they may share common questions of law and fact.

The cases are Volvo Trucks North America, a division of Volvo Group North America LLC v. Andy Mohr Truck Center and Andrew F. Mohr, 1:12-CV-448; and Andy Mohr Truck Center Inc. v. Volvo Trucks North America, a division of Volvo Group North America LLC, 1:12-CV-701.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT