Legal Opinion
AM/PM Franchise Ass'n v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 14, 1988No. 01958PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*574BECK, Judge:
The named plaintiffs claim to be representatives of a class comprised of over 150 gasoline dealers in Pennsylvania and New York who were franchised under agreements with defendant Atlantic Richfield Company.1 Plaintiffs brought a breach of warranty action against Atlantic Rich-field, including counts alleging fraud and breach of the duty of fair dealing. The gravamen of the complaint is that the introduction by Atlantic Richfield of Oxinol as a blending agent in ARCO brand gasoline caused the dealers to lose profits because of a decreased sales volume caused by customer…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Neville Chemical Company v. Union Carbide CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1970
- Kassab v. SoyaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. RazumicSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Clevenstein v. RizzutoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Creeger Brick & Building Supply Inc. v. Mid-State Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Northview Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corporation Joseph P. Nigro, TrusteeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2000
- Ash v. Continental InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Gorski v. SmithSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- AM/PM Franchise Ass'n v. Atlantic Richfield Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.