From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crabtree Automotive, Inc. v. BMW of North America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 26, 1984
105 A.D.2d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Opinion

November 26, 1984

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.).


Order affirmed, with costs.

The oral agreement by defendant BMW, allegedly made with plaintiff, to approve a sale of the BMW dealership owned by defendant Pace to plaintiff was unenforceable (Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-201; see Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., 74 A.D.2d 258). We agree with Special Term that the conceptual differences between the granting of an original franchise and the consent by the franchiser to the transfer of a franchise to another are without legal substance insofar as section 2-201 of the Uniform Commercial Code is concerned (see Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., supra). Both necessarily involve an agreement to purchase goods for the price of $500 or more. This is particularly so where a provision of the dealership agreement relating to transfer of the dealership was to the effect that upon BMW's approval of a transfer it would offer the transferee the right to enter into a new agreement involving the purchase of goods in "the same form as the Agreement then currently offered by BMWNA to its Dealers". Boyers, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Crabtree Automotive, Inc. v. BMW of North America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 26, 1984
105 A.D.2d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)
Case details for

Crabtree Automotive, Inc. v. BMW of North America

Case Details

Full title:CRABTREE AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Appellant, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 26, 1984

Citations

105 A.D.2d 825 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984)

Citing Cases

Wallach Marine Corp. v. Donzi Marine Corp.

New York Uniform Commercial Code § 2-201 (N.Y.U.C.C.). New York courts explicitly have ruled that this…

United Beer Distrib. v. Hiram Walker

The oral distribution agreement asserted by plaintiff United was with Carlton, not defendants. Were this the…