This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract

Rutherford H. Dawson v. Ford Motor Company

Published: Mar. 17, 2007 | Result Date: Nov. 27, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC328110 Verdict –  Defense

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Suzelle M. Smith

Don Howarth

Darcy R. Harris


Defendant

Alexander L. Conti

Donald H. Dawson Jr.

Kathleen A. Clark


Experts

Plaintiff

Ernest Manuel
(technical)

Andy Zighelboim
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Rutherford Dawson, a former Ford minority dealer, claimed that he entered into a contract with defendant Ford Motor Co. Under the contract, defendant allegedly agreed to appoint plaintiff as a Ford Division dealer without any screening, on the condition that he presented an operable buy/sell contract with a selling dealer. According to plaintiff, defendant breached their agreement when it failed to accept his application as a dealer. Plaintiff further claimed that at the time defendant rejected his application, he had already agreed to purchase the dealership's assets from Lithia Concord Ford VW. Moreover, plaintiff opined that his application should not have been rejected, as he was a qualified candidate for the job.

According to plaintiff, the rejection of his application resulted in the tortious interference of his buy/sell contract with Lithia. He also claimed promissory fraud.

Defendant argued that it never had a contract with plaintiff. Further, it asserted that plaintiff's application was rejected because he failed to meet the criteria for appointment as a dealer.

Damages

Plaintiff sought $29 million. This amount included lost profits and loss of the appreciation of value in the leasehold improvements of the dealership.

Result

Judgment was for defendant.

Other Information

Plaintiff contended that the trial court erred in instructing the jury and in improperly limiting the evidence in could consider, and will appeal.

Deliberation

four days

Poll

9-3

Length

eight weeks


#88670

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390