Microman distributors florida3/26/2023 ![]() ![]() If the franchise is terminated, the importer has the burden of proving it acted in good faith, that it complied with the notice requirements of subsection (9), and that there was good cause for cancellation of the franchise. (e) the distributor has been afforded 30 days in which to submit a plan of corrective action to comply with the agreement and an additional 90 days to cure such noncompliance in accordance with the plan. (d) The distributor was afforded a reasonable opportunity to assert good faith efforts to comply with the agreement within the time limits provided for in paragraph (e). (c) The distributor was given written notice by the manufacturer of failure to comply with the agreement. (b) The first acquired knowledge of the failure described in paragraph (a) not more than 18 months before the date notification was given pursuant to subsection (6). Good cause for cancellation of an exclusive territorial franchise exists only if all of the following events occur: (a) There is a failure by the distributor to comply with a provision of the agreement which is both reasonable and of material significance to the business relationship between the distributor and the manufacturer. In turn, § 671.201(20), Florida Statutes, defines good faith as “honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.” The “good cause” requirement of subsection (6)(c) is also defined by the statute. Good faith means “honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned as defined and interpreted under s. What constitutes “good faith” is defined by the distributorship statute. The latter two requirements are at issue in this case. To cancel a franchise, the importer must comply 2 with three requirements: (a) it must give notice as required by subsection (9) (b) it must act in good faith and (c) it must have “good cause” for the termination. Notwithstanding subsection (5), importers are permitted to cancel an exclusive territorial franchise in limited circumstances. To terminate, cancel, fail to renew, or refuse to continue the franchise or selling agreement of any such distributor without good cause as defined in subsections (7) and (10). Section 563.022(4) proscribes “nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of the manufacturing, importing, distribution, sale, wholesaling, and franchising of beer.” Section 563.022(5) further elucidates subsection (4) by setting forth sixteen unfair acts, including one relevant to this case: (b) It shall be deemed a violation of subsection (4) for a manufacturer or officer, agent, or other representative thereof. Section 563.022, Florida Statutes, is designed to accomplish three goals: (1) ensure the distributor “is free to manage its business enterprise” (2) ensure the distributor will “devote reasonable efforts and resources to sales and distribution” of an importer’s products and maintain a “satisfactory” sales level and (3) establish and maintain an orderly system of beer distribution to the public. The Florida Legislature strictly regulates the relationship between importers and distributors of beer. The exclusive sales territory “shall be embodied in a formal written agreement,” which must designate the brands for which the territory is granted and the exact geographical boundaries of the territory. Distributors are entitled to an exclusive sales territory for each product imported. The Statutory Scheme Because they can sell directly to consumers only in limited circumstances, importers and manufacturers of beer must assign distributors for their products. The statute is therefore reviewed first, and then the undisputed facts giving rise to this lawsuit are described. The parties’ actions and claims must be understood within the context of § 563.022. Micro Man sued, alleging a violation of § 563.022, Florida Statutes, which governs the relationships between beer distributors and beer importers. terminated the exclusive beer distribution franchise for the state of Florida assigned to Plaintiff Micro Man Distributors, Inc. INTRODUCTION On February 20, 2013, Defendant Louis Glunz Beer, Inc. Upon consideration, genuine issues of fact remain as to the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s distribution efforts and whether Defendant’s termination of the franchise was made in good faith. ![]() 49), and the corresponding responses (Dkts. 39), Louis Glunz Beer, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. _/ ORDER BEFORE THE COURT are Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 68 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION MICRO MAN DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Plaintiff, vs. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |