IBJNews

Court dismisses Volvo claims in dealership dispute

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 breach of contract, among other things.

Mohr says 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 that arrangement, but that the transactions had 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 reaching 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.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Good Decision
    Good decision from the court! Volvo needs to hire better Contract Law Attorneys.

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT