Letter from a Dodge Dealer

Post by **GORDON** » Fri May 22, 2009 5:43 pm

This one is making the rounds.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog....er.html

Anyone know if it is legit?

Post by **TheCatt** » Fri May 22, 2009 7:15 pm

Dunno. But it's called "bankruptcy"

Mommy Dearest · Post by **Mommy Dearest** » Fri May 22, 2009 8:27 pm

I googled it, it does exist

Post by **TPRJones** » Sat May 23, 2009 1:10 am

So is that allowed under the franchise agreement? If so, that was a bad thing to sign.

Post by **TheCatt** » Sat May 23, 2009 6:48 am

TPRJones wrote:So is that allowed under the franchise agreement? If so, that was a bad thing to sign.

Lots of things are allowed under bankruptcy. Basically, it's not the franchise agreement that is allowing it. Bankruptcy allows organizations the opportunities to cancel legal contracts (such as franchise agreements) in order to reduce costs. That's what they are doing.

Post by **Troy** » Sat May 23, 2009 11:17 am

So when the agreements with labor unions are/will be dissolved you guys are happy, but you are suprised when similar things happen to similar contracts the auto companies have?

Post by **GORDON** » Sat May 23, 2009 12:30 pm

I don't think I understand the nature of an franchised auto seller. I thought he had assets that were his to do with as he pleased even with a parent-company-bankruptcy.

Edited By GORDON on 1243096257

Post by **Cakedaddy** » Sat May 23, 2009 2:01 pm

I don't understand the "given to another dealship at no cost". What does that mean?

Sounds like any car he has on his lot is now an abandoned vehicle. Chrysler won't warrenty it?

Post by **GORDON** » Sat May 23, 2009 2:09 pm

Even if Chrysler won't, they still have value. I can't see how they could just be "given away" without any recompense to the owner. Assuming the franchisee is the owner. Again, I guess I don't know how auto franchises work.

Post by **TheCatt** » Sat May 23, 2009 2:56 pm

Franchises are legal agreements with all sorts of conditions. Basically, what is happening is that Chrysler is saying: Company A, you can no longer be a franchise, we are breaking this legal agreement. Company B, we are now allow you to sell car X that Company A used to sell.

I'm assuming that the basic issues is that since Company A is no longer a franchise, it cannot do things that only franchises are allowed (the warranty work, the cashback rebates, etc) It still has whatever cars, and can sell them. And it can still do normal repair work, it just can't act on behalf or as a part of Chrysler.

I mean, sucks to be him, but maybe in those 35 years he should have done more to protect himself.

Mommy Dearest · Post by **Mommy Dearest** » Sat May 23, 2009 3:20 pm

GORDON wrote:I don't think I understand the nature of an franchised auto seller. I thought he had assets that were his to do with as he pleased even with a parent-company-bankruptcy.

He can do whatever he wants with his assets he just can not sell that type of car anymore and the one's in his inventory will not be covered under factory warranty after a certain date

Post by **Vince** » Sun May 24, 2009 12:25 am

I have to say that while I understand it, it's kind of bullshit. Not that the franchise can be yanked out from under him, but that he doesn't have any sort of protection dealing with warranties and such. They couldn't do that to a consumer. Seems like there should be some protection for the franchise owner to be covered with current inventory or something. On the automobiles themselves. Obviously the parts would be problematic.