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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT