Legal Opinion · Dissent

River Valley Truck Center, Inc. v. Interstate Companies

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided September 29, 2005No. A03-1273Published

1Dissent

ANDERSON, RUSSELL A., Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. To reach the conclusion that the dealership agreement requires River Valley to represent an OEM that offers Detroit Diesel engines, the majority ignores established principles of contract interpretation by (1) considering the sales and promotion responsibilities in the first paragraph of section 2.2.1 in isolation from the rest of the dealership agreement; (2) treating the failure to satisfy a conditional obligation as a breach; (3) rendering conditional language that specifically addresses a dealer’s representation of an OEM…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Art Goebel, Inc. v. North Suburban Agencies, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1997
  2. Chergosky v. Crosstown Bell, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1990
  3. Denelsbeck v. Wells Fargo & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2003
  4. Current Technology Concepts, Inc. v. Irie Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1995
  5. Jungbluth v. Hometown, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1996

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API