C. A. May Marine Supply Company, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brunswick Corporation, Defendant-Appellant., 557 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1977)

Federal Circuits, 5th Cir. (August 19, 1977)

Docket number: 76-3410

Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/may-marine-supply-brunswick-corporation-38388623
Id. vLex: VLEX-38388623

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Request manual translation

Search in this document

Document options

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - in Re Larry Earl Fawcett, Et Al., Debtors, Larry Earl Fawcett, Larry E. Fawcett, Fawcett Contracting, and Fawcett Brothers Contracting, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Defendant-Appellee., 758 F.2d 588 (11th Cir. 1985)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Kealey Pharmacy & Home Care Services, Inc., Et Al., Plaintiffs- Counterdefendants-Appellees, v. Walgreen Company, Defendant-Counterplaintiff-Appellant., 761 F.2d 345 (7th Cir. 1985)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Notice: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 Provides that Dispositions Other Than Opinions or Orders Designated for Publication Are Not Precedential and Should Not Be Cited Except When Relevant Under the Doctrines of Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel. Fred Briggs Distributing Company, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. California Cooler, Inc.; Brown-Forman Corporation, Defendants-Appellees., 2 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 1993)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Diesel Service Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ambac International Corporation, Defendant-Appellee., 961 F.2d 635 (7th Cir. 1992)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23932V Stephen Chojnacki, Robert Gustin, Emil Kouba, Donald Nickel, James Scott, Roland Sherwood, James Tracy, Robert Votava, and Edward Vruwink, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, David W. Reynolds, and Gnn Employee Protection Plan, Defendants-Appellees., 108 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 1997)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Cir. - Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Eastern Auto Distributors, Inc., Defendant-Appellee. Peugeot Motors of America, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eastern Auto Distributors, Inc., Defendant-Appellant., 892 F.2d 355 (4th Cir. 1990)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Cir. - C. A. May Marine Supply Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brunswick Corporation, Defendant-Appellee., 649 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir. 1981)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - Morley-Murphy Co., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zenith Electronics Corp., Defendant-Appellant., 142 F.3d 373 (7th Cir. 1998)

See all citations to this document

Text:

G. Bruce Cunningham, Ronald L. Reid, Sidney O. Smith, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for defendant-appellant.

John C. Butters, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before GEWIN, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We affirm the judgment of the District Court, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, for the reasons stated in the order of the District Court, a copy of which is attached hereto as an Appendix.

Brunswick Corporation asserts there was no "dealership" within the meaning of Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law § 135.02(2). The point lacks merit. The contract refers to the plaintiff as a "dealer" and the ongoing duties of advertising, repair, warranty work and financial solvency establish the "community of interest" required by the statute.

AFFIRMED.

[fn1] The Georgia courts' position on this issue is, of course, only persuasive and not binding, authority. Whatever else the interpretation clause of this contract means, it certainly requires this court to look to Wisconsin law to determine the actual meaning of the clause itself. However, neither party has presented the court with any Wisconsin authority on point, and the court has found none.

[fn2] Section 135.02 provides:

"(6) `Good cause' means:

"(a) Failure by a dealer to comply substantially with essential and reasonable requirements imposed upon him by the grantor, or sought to be imposed by the grantor, which requirements are not discriminatory as compared with requirements imposed on other similarly situated dealers either by their terms or in the manner of their enforcement; or

"(b) Bad faith by the dealer in carrying out the terms of the dealership."

[fn3] "(2) `Dealership' means a contract or agreement, either expressed or implied, whether oral or written, between 2 or more persons, by which a person is granted the right to sell or distribute goods or services, or use a trade name, trademark, service mark, logotype, advertising or other commercial symbol, in which there is a community of interest in the business of offering, selling or distributing goods or services at wholesale, retail, by lease, agreement or otherwise."