Buying and Selling Automobile Dealerships - Limitations When Negotiating the Contract

Buying and Selling Automobile Dealerships - Dutiesparticular purpose or purposes; (b) in the furtherance of
Negotiating the ContractDuties of and towhich a know party or parties was intended to rely;
ShareholdersThe sale of control of a corporation at aand (c) there must have been some conduct on the
premium is not in and of itself a breach of duty. Apart of the accountants linking to that party or parties,
"premium" is that amount an investor is willing to pay towhich evidences the accountants' understanding of
gain control of a corporation.But, a sale of controlthat party or parties' reliance. See: Ultramares v.
under the following circumstances may be actionable:1.Touche and Credit Alliance Corp v. Arthur Anderson
The sale of control is in effect a disposition of controland Co.2) The Foreseeability Approach holds that an
over a business asset which the corporation may notaccountant is liable to a third party whose reliance on
use to the corporation's advantage. Example: if athe accountant's services was reasonably foreseeable
majority shareholder sells his shares to a party that isto the accountant. Accordingly, an accountant who
paying a premium for control over certain transactions,prepares an audit report is liable to a third party for
but who otherwise would not pay a premium for thenegligent misrepresentation if it is reasonably
corporation itself.foreseeable that such third party might obtain, and rely
2. The majority shareholder failed to disclose receipton, the audit report. This is an expansive view of
of a premium when a purchaser attempted to acquireaccountant liability and even a number of the small
the minority's share;group of states that adopted it, have retreated from it.
3. The majority shareholder failed to discloseNew Jersey, for example, passed a more restrictive
favorable employment contracts, profit sharingstatute: N.J. Stat. Section 2A: 53A-25 (L. 1995, 2000).3)
agreements and the like.The Restatement Approach adopted over half the
4. If the offer is to purchase all shares at the samestates that holds an accountant is liable to third party if
price, but the majority first buys-out the minority at ahe supplies information to a third parties that is actually
lower price, without disclosing the higher offer theforeseen as a user of the information for a particular
minority shareholder.Although the law is still developingpurpose. In other words, for liability to attach the plaintiff
it appears the minority may be eliminated at a lowermust be a member of a limited class to whom the
price, if there is a legitimate business purpose.Stateaccountant intends to supply the information, or to
case and statutory law is diverse on the question ofwhom the accountant knows the recipient intends to
minority shareholder rights. Given two identical factsupply it, and who suffers a loss through reliance on
situations, a sale by majority shareholder could, forthe information for substantially the same purposes as
example, give rise to a cause of action in California,the bona fide client. For example, the accountant may
while conforming to Delaware law. In sales involvingbe held liable to a third party lender if the accountant is
several shareholders, the attorneys for eachinformed by the client that the audit report would be
shareholder should research the question ofused to obtain a loan, even if the specific lender
"premiums", with respect to both the state ofremains unidentified or the client names one lender and
incorporation and the state wherein the company'sthen borrows from another.Libel and SlanderEvery
principal place of business is located.Duties to Otherjurisdiction has statutory definitions for libel and slander,
PurchasersProbably the biggest case in this area wasthe elements of which include a false and unprivileged
a Houston jury's award of $7.53 billion in actualpublication by writing or orally, which has a tendency to
damages and $3 billion in punitive damages to Penzoilinjury a person with respect to his office, trade, or
Co. In 1984, Penzoil was negotiating a takeover dealbusiness. Included are statements impugning the
with Getty Oil Co., which Texaco eventually purchasedcompetency of a dealer to manage the affairs of a
for $10.2 billion. Penzoil then sued Texaco for $14 billion,dealership.During the course of negotiations, a buyer
charging that Texaco coaxed Getty into jilting Penzoilsometimes become frustrated with a seller's actions
takeover deal.Intentional interference with contractualand expresses those frustrations by impugning the
relations, intentional interference with prospectiveseller's ability to operate a dealership. Such statements,
business advantages and related torts are "hot ticketwhile generally harmless, assume a magnified
items" and general and punitive damages are almostsignificance, when the purchaser is negotiating to
unlimited. This exposure provides another reason bothacquire a financially troubled dealership. At best, under
buyer and seller should involve their attorneys to asuch circumstances, lenders are apprehensive; at
greater extent than just having them review theworst, they are neurotic. Invariably, at some point during
Buy-Sell Agreement.Opinions as to PerformanceSellersthe negotiations, a purchaser will meet the seller's
inevitably opine how well a dealership will do withlender and at that point in time -- more than any other
additional capital or a new owner and the courts have-- the prospective purchaser must realize that he has
generally supported the adage "No one can predict thethe ability to damage the seller and must be disciplined
future" and refused to recognize a cause of actionenough to be discreet when commenting upon the
based upon one party's predictions, to the otherseller's status, or abilities, regardless of how determined
regarding future events, performance, opinions, ora lender's inquires may appear.Interference with a
intentions.Statements such as "there are no badContract or Prospective ContractWhether or not a
franchises -- only bad operators"; the store was "aprospective buyer becomes the ultimate purchaser,
gold mine"; or that the buyer would make more moneythe prospect has a duty not to intentionally or
than before have been held "purely opinion, puffing, ornegligently interfere with a contract, or, in many states,
conjecture as to future events" and as a matter ofa prospective business advantage, of the seller. Again,
law not actionable.Automobile dealerships areduring the course of negotiations, there are occasions
anomalies in the field of buying and selling businesseswhen a purchaser is tempted to say or do something
because by the very nature of the business bothin order to frighten a competitive bidder and preserve
parties must be amongst the most knowledgeablean exclusive business opportunity. Such actions are
people in the field, as the seller has already beenproscribed and when called upon to determine the
qualified by both the factory and a financial institutionlegitimacy of the purchaser's actions the courts will
as having that special knowledge and extra skillgenerally consider the following factors: (a) the conduct
necessary to be approved as a dealer; and the buyer(b) the motive; (c) the interests of the other with which
by virtue of the fact that the buyer intends tothe actor's conduct interferes; (d) the interests sought
purchase the dealership has represented that heto be advanced by the actor: (e) the social interest in
possessions the knowledge and skill necessary toprotecting the freedom of action of the actor and the
obtain factory and finance approval, or that someonecontractual interests of the other; (f) the proximity or
on his team possesses the necessary qualifications.Inremoteness of the actor's conduct to the interference,
Denison State Bank v. Madeira the defendantand (g) the relationship between the parties. See
purchased an automobile dealership and in addition toSecond Restatement of Torts and Buckaloo v.
refusing to pay his loan, he cross-complained againstJohnson.SummationThe increased dollar value, of
the bank alleging the bank misrepresented and omitteddealerships, combined with the higher level of
material facts about the dealership when hesophistication of today's automobile dealer, versus the
purchased it. In reversing a jury verdict against theautomobile dealer of twenty years ago, has led to
bank the appellate court stated the defendant was amore dealers being willing to litigate, when they have
knowledgeable car man and although he testified hebeen damaged. Recently, that litigation has expanded
trusted and relied upon the Bank to furnish himfrom dealers suing manufacturers, to dealers suing
complete, honest information, he could not abandon alldealers. If one had to predict the area in which litigation
caution and responsibility for his own protection andwill expand, in the next ten years, one would have to
unilaterally impose a fiduciary relationship on the bankinclude in that prediction the area surrounding buy-sell
without a conscious assumption of such duties by thenegotiations.The courts have held, time and again, that
bank. See too: Kruse v. Bank of America where thehard bargaining is part of the American system
court stated the plaintiffs could not have reasonably[Sheehan v. Atlantic International Insurance Co., but
expected what they said they expected from thethey have also noted, that the notions of fair play and
bank's promises and assurances.But Beware: Ina sense of propriety are also a part of that system.
Martens Chevrolet, Inc. the owner of the dealership[Rich Whillock, Inc. v. Ashton Development, Inc.] And,
was negotiating with the plaintiffs to sell his dealershipwhile many scholars agree that the most successful
and in response to plaintiff's inquires as to thenegotiations result in solutions where both parties, to
profitability of the dealership the owner indicated that itone degree or another, win, the courts recognize that
was "mildly profitable" and offered produced aeach party not only has a duty to protect their own
handwritten trend sheet prepared by his accountantsinterests and that of their shareholders [Cosoff v.
supporting the statement and stating that the auditedRodman (In re W.T. Grant Co.], but that people who do
statements of the dealership's operations were notnot affirmatively perform that duty [due diligence], have
complete or available.After the purchase, the buyerno cause of action against their opponents, because
learned that the dealership was operated at a loss asthe opponents did not perform the duty for them. [See:
reflected in audited statements prepared prior to theDennison State Bank v. Madeira, 230 Kan. and Macon
negotiations and sale sued alleging breach of contract,County Livestock Market, Inc. v. Kentucky State Bank,
deceit and negligent misrepresentation against theInc.].In summation, the negotiation table is a business
former owner. The Court assumed a duty existedtable, at which, both parties are expected to be at their
between the former owner and the buyer andbest with respect to preparation, presentation and
reaffirmed the tort of negligent misrepresentationdetermination. If one party is lacking in one of the
against the dealer.Special Rules for AccountantsTherecategories, it is not the responsibility of the other party
are three different tests employed by other courts toto supplement the deficiency. To the contrary, the
determine what, if any, duty an accountant has to aparticipants have a duty to themselves, their families
third party, in preparing a financial statement for hisand to their shareholders to obtain the best possible
own client. These tests were:1) The Traditionalterms, without unjustly fettering the opposing party's
(Ultramares) Approach holds that before a plaintiffability to respond.John Pico is a vice president of
could sue an accountant he had to have privity, or aAutomotive Advisors. He has completed over 1,000
relationship equivalent to privity. The Plaintiff mustdealership transactions, and published the first books
establish (a) the accountants must have been awarecopyrighted in the Library of Congress on Buying and
that the financial reports were to be used for aSelling Automobile dealerships.