Arnson v. General Motors Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that car manufacturer did not have sufficient control over dealership’s sales operation to impose vicarious liability for dealership’s actions
• finding insufficient control by auto manufacturer over dealer to justify liability, and listing cases finding franchised auto dealers to be independent contractors rather than agents
• finding no agency, but basing analysis on lack of a right of control as demonstrated by uncontradicted facts
• automobile dealer not an agent of General Motors despite apparent exclusive sale of General Motor’s products
• “An important element in determining the existence of an agency relationship is the existence of some degree of control over the conduct and activities of the supposed agent”
• “[Section] 210(b) provides the substantive remedy for a damage action involving illegal price overcharges on sales of goods, and no other remedy arises solely by reason of subsection (a), which is solely jurisdictional”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).