Summary
adopting reasoning of dissent below stating that "[t]he Franchise Practices Act is remedial in purpose focuses on the need to protect franchisees from inequitable treatment by economically more powerful franchisors"
Summary of this case from Liberty Lincoln-Mercury v. Ford Motor CompanyOpinion
Argued March 16, 1992 —
Decided April 8, 1992.
Appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Kenneth K. Lehn argued the cause for appellants ( Greenberg Margolis, attorneys).
Michael S. Waters argued the cause for respondents ( Carpenter, Bennett Morrissey, attorneys; Michael S. Waters and John P. Dwyer, of counsel; Stephen F. Payerle, on the brief).
Kenneth M. Denti submitted a letter in lieu of brief on behalf of amicus curiae, New Jersey Automobile Dealers Association ( Wilentz, Goldman Spitzer, attorneys).
The Court denied plaintiffs' petition for certification from so much of the judgment of the Appellate Division, reported at 248 N.J. Super. 654, 591 A.2d 1024 (1991), as was unanimous. 127 N.J. 548, 606 A.2d 362 (1991). Plaintiffs also appealed as of right pursuant to Rule 2:2-1(a)(2) on the issue of whether the Appellate Division had properly affirmed the Law Division's dismissal of their warranty-parts-reimbursement claim. So much of the judgment of the Appellate Division as affirmed that judgment of dismissal of that claim is reversed, substantially for the reasons expressed in Judge Cohen's partial dissent, reported at 248 N.J. Super. at 674, 591 A.2d 1024. The matter is remanded to the Law Division for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
For reversal and remandment — Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 5.
For affirmance — None.