Equipment Dealer Act Did Not Require Election of Remedies

The Michigan Farm and Utility Equipment Act did not require two dealers to make an election of remedies between their breach of contract and dealer law claims against equipment manufacturer Deere & Company, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati has ruled.

The district court did not err in refusing to reduce a jury’s award of more than $5.4 million in damages against Deere in a lawsuit brought by the two dealers against Deere for termination of their dealership agreements in violation of the Michigan statute, among other claims.

Peter Reap, Editor of CCH Business Franchise Guide recently wrote, “Deere argued that the clear and unambiguous language of the dealer law required the dealerships to elect to recover either on their breach of contract claim or their statutory claim, but not both. No case has analyzed this provision, and Deere does not explain which words in this provision create the obligation it asserts, the court noted.”

Michigan’s comparative-fault scheme did not require a reduction in the jury’s award of damages, based on the jury’s finding of 65% of the fault allocated to Deere and 35% of the fault allocated to a dealer.

The June 13, 2012 decision is Laethem Equipment Co. v. Deere & Co.