Persons Subject to Article; Written Instruments Violating Article Void; Franchisor's Use of Subsidiary to Accomplish Illegal Act

  1. Law
  2. Georgia Code
  3. Commerce and Trade
  4. Selling and Other Trade Practices
  5. Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices
  6. General Consideration
  7. Persons Subject to Article; Written Instruments Violating Article Void; Franchisor's Use of Subsidiary to Accomplish Illegal Act

Checkout our iOS App for a better way to browser and research.

  1. Any person who engages directly or indirectly in purposeful contacts within this state in connection with the offering of advertising for sale or has business dealings with respect to a new motor vehicle sale within this state shall be subject to the provisions of this article and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state.
  2. The applicability of this article shall not be affected by a choice of law clause in any franchise, agreement, waiver, novation, or any other written instrument.
  3. Any provision of any franchise, agreement, waiver, novation, or any other written instrument executed, modified, extended, or renewed after July 1, 1983, which is in violation of any Code section of this article, and any amendments thereto, shall be deemed null and void and without force and effect.
  4. No franchisor shall use any subsidiary corporation, affiliated corporation, or any other controlled corporation, partnership, association, or person to accomplish what would otherwise be illegal conduct under this article on the part of the franchisor.

(Code 1981, §10-1-624, enacted by Ga. L. 1993, p. 1585, § 2; Ga. L. 2010, p. 988, § 4/HB 1072.)

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2010, p. 988, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "WHEREAS, the General Assembly desires to reaffirm the legislative findings and declarations set forth in Code Section 10-1-621 and to make changes to the Georgia Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices Act in an effort to promote the stability of franchised motor vehicle dealerships in this state, thereby maintaining necessary reliable services to the consuming public, maintaining full and fair competition among dealers in the public interest, and providing continued employment to the citizens of this state."

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in Coffee v. GMAC, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (S.D. Ga. 1998).


Download our app to see the most-to-date content.