http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/letter_from_a_dodge_dealer.html

[Freedom4all]

George C. Joseph is the owner of Sunshine Dodge Isuzu, located in Melbourne Florida

Link

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them.

 

[dapoes]

Ive heard of some other instances of this happening as well. It is awful.

 

[Kev3188]

I agree that the way they're going about this isn't good, but some dealers had to close. What would you guys have suggested as a way to do so?

 

[cltrat]

I agree that the way they're going about this isn't good, but some dealers had to close. What would you guys have suggested as a way to do so?

maybe some compensation for the dealer and employees instead of thks for the years of loyality now kiss our a**

 

[dapoes]

It gets even better:

Ex-Piston Sura files first Saturn lawsuit

A Saturn dealership co-owned by former Detroit Piston Bob Sura has launched the first of an expected flood of lawsuits against General Motors Corp., arguing the automaker's plan to eliminate the brand rendered his franchise "worthless."

The lawsuit, filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Florida, accuses GM of violating state franchise laws and stripping Saturn of any value by announcing the brand will be sold or eliminated later this year. The lawsuit came the same day GM sent letters to 1,100 dealers nationwide stating their franchise agreements would not be renewed next year. The move is part of GM's plan to cut its U.S. dealership ranks by about 40 percent from 5,969 to 3,600 by next year.

"Customer traffic virtually ceased," Sox said in an interview.

Why would they go public with something like? Didnt they realize the negative impact and damage that would do?

At best they should have confided with the franchisee owners, giving them advanced notice and preparations.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

maybe some compensation for the dealer and employees instead of thks for the years of loyality now kiss our a**

You guys read an opinion piece from the New Republic and fall for it hook, line and sinker. This is absolutely nothing new, but that guy is largely misrepresenting the facts. It is a simple contract rejection. He acts like Chrysler (or Obama) is forcing him to sell his business. Rather, he is simply one party to a contract; the other party being Chrysler. Under bankruptcy law, the debtor can reject contracts and most debtors choose to reject unprofitable contracts. This guy likely is not party to a profitable contract and, thus, Chrysler is rejecting his contract as they have every right to do so. So, all they are doing is rejecting his contract and he will have a damages claim for the breach of his contract. Which, admittedly, will be less than 100 cents on the dollar, but not less than other unsecured creditors like him. He is just pissed that the company that once supplied him cars will no longer do so.

 

[Garfield1966]

Guilding,

How many times have we had this discussion. You keep bringing facts and research into perfectly good conspiracy threads. If you continue with such behavior, I'm going to have to report you. Not sure to who but I will because such behavior is not tolerated on this forum.

 

[Freedom4all]

Guilding,

How many times have we had this discussion. You keep bringing facts and research into perfectly good conspiracy threads. If you continue with such behavior, I'm going to have to report you. Not sure to who but I will because such behavior is not tolerated on this forum.

Excuse me? Theres no conspiracy. That was an actual letter sent from the dealership. Do some research for yourself instead of shooting of yer furry mouth for once.

 

[Freedom4all]

You guys read an opinion piece from the New Republic and fall for it hook, line and sinker. This is absolutely nothing new, but that guy is largely misrepresenting the facts. It is a simple contract rejection. He acts like Chrysler (or Obama) is forcing him to sell his business. Rather, he is simply one party to a contract; the other party being Chrysler. Under bankruptcy law, the debtor can reject contracts and most debtors choose to reject unprofitable contracts. This guy likely is not party to a profitable contract and, thus, Chrysler is rejecting his contract as they have every right to do so. So, all they are doing is rejecting his contract and he will have a damages claim for the breach of his contract. Which, admittedly, will be less than 100 cents on the dollar, but not less than other unsecured creditors like him. He is just pissed that the company that once supplied him cars will no longer do so.

That letter is not an op ed piece. That letter has been widely published all over recently. Theres also the link to the dealership as well. Do your own research before opening your flap.

 

[cltrat]

maybe the dealer would have been better off being one of Obamas pals and needing a 800,000 dollar runway renovation for 10 or so flights a day,then he could have gotten some of that stimulus gravy

 

[dapoes]

Excuse me? Theres no conspiracy. That was an actual letter sent from the dealership. Do some research for yourself instead of shooting of yer furry mouth for once.

Get used to it, these two often have their you-know-whats-up-there-u-know-where.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

That letter is not an op ed piece. That letter has been widely published all over recently. Theres also the link to the dealership as well. Do your own research before opening your flap.

I think you should do your research, bud. Here is a list of dealer contracts that Chrysler is rejecting. If you look, you will see his dealership. Again, this guy is just mad because he is unprofitable and Fiat doesn't want his dealership, so Chrysler is rejecting his contract as it has every right to do. And say what you will, when someone misrepresents facts like that dealer operator did, then I consider it nothing more than opinion (and often much worse).

 

[Freedom4all]

I think you should do your research, bud. Here is a list of dealer contracts that Chrysler is rejecting. If you look, you will see his dealership. Again, this guy is just mad because he is unprofitable and Fiat doesn't want his dealership, so Chrysler is rejecting his contract as it has every right to do. And say what you will, when someone misrepresents facts like that dealer operator did, then I consider it nothing more than opinion (and often much worse).

Spoken like a true socialist! Obama would be so proud of you!

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Spoken like a true socialist! Obama would be so proud of you!

hahaha. I really think you should consider the ramifications of your argument. I am arguing against socialist agenda. If this dealership was to be paid for this so-called "taking" of the dealership, then who do you think would pay for it??? Since you are currently paying for Chrysler's financing, and Chrysler would be paying for this so-called taking, then ipso facto, you and every other taxpayer would be paying that dealership. And if they keep funding unprofitable enterprises with government money, then how is that furthering capitalism? Who is the socialist now?!?! Let's stop propping up poorly-run companies (particularly those that can't even be deemed so-called too large too fail) with government money.

 

[delldude]

You guys read an opinion piece from the New Republic and fall for it hook, line and sinker. This is absolutely nothing new, but that guy is largely misrepresenting the facts. It is a simple contract rejection. He acts like Chrysler (or Obama) is forcing him to sell his business. Rather, he is simply one party to a contract; the other party being Chrysler. Under bankruptcy law, the debtor can reject contracts and most debtors choose to reject unprofitable contracts. This guy likely is not party to a profitable contract and, thus, Chrysler is rejecting his contract as they have every right to do so. So, all they are doing is rejecting his contract and he will have a damages claim for the breach of his contract. Which, admittedly, will be less than 100 cents on the dollar, but not less than other unsecured creditors like him. He is just pissed that the company that once supplied him cars will no longer do so.

But OTOH.......this is not a simple BK.........BK ala Geithener/Big O...totally outside of BK law principle.