Return to Browsing

5 N.J.A.R. 481

U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.; House of Suzuki, Inc., v
Formats: PDF | DjVu— Help viewing DjVu Files
Citation: 5 N.J.A.R. 481
Decision Date: 1983
Agency: MOTOR VEHICLE FRANCHISE COMMITTEE
Synopsis: Pursuant to N.J.S.A 56:10-16 et seq, petitioner filed a petition of protest with the Motor Vehicle Franchise Committee over respon- dent's establishment of a competing motorcycle dealership within its area of service. The administrative law judge found that there were several motor- cycle dealerships surrounding petitioner and that despite petitioner's excellent service and reputation its share of a steadily declining motor- cycle business was dropping. The judge found that approximately 30 percent of petitioner's business was generated within a six mile radius of the proposed new dealership. In addition, petitioner's already pre- carious financial condition would be further damaged by the opening of a new dealership which would have at its disposal respondent's beneficial financing plan for new agencies. The judge noted that if petitioner did go out of business the customers whom it had served would be left without adequate service. The judge noted that pursuant to N.J.S.A 56:10-16 et seq., he was to consider several factors to determine if a new franchise would be injurious to existing franchises and the public interest. Among these factors were: (1) the effect on stable and adequate service to purchasers of that brand in the market area; (2) the effect on existing franchisees; (3) whether existing dealers are in fact providing adequate service to consumers; and (4) in the case of an extended relocation, the effect of denial on the dealer who wishes to relocate. Based on these considerations, the administrative law judge de- termined that the establishment of the new dealership would have a detrimental effect on the provision of stable, adequate and reliable service in the market area; accordingly, the respondent wsa prohibited from opening its proposed dealership. 482 Office of Administrative I. aw Samuel L. Daivd, Esq., for petitioner (Davis & Saperstein, at- torneys) Mark S. Kundla, Esq., for respondent (Bumgardner, Hardin & Ellis, attorneys) Duffern Helsing, Esq., for respondent (Helsine & Rockwell, at- torneys, admitted pro hac vice)
Statute(s) Cited: 56:10-16 et seq.