Seventh Circuit Takes on Dairy Parlors, Damages, and Dealerships

08 July 2015 Wisconsin Appellate Law Blog

A recent Seventh Circuit opinion written by Judge Posner addresses both the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and some issues of damages proof in a particularly appropriate Wisconsin context: dairy-equipment dealerships.

The dispute in Tilstra v. BouMatic LLC, No. 14-3333 (7th Cir. June 30, 2015), arose after BouMatic, a Wisconsin dairy-equipment manufacturer, decided that Tilstra, its long-time dealer in “arguably the richest dairy county in Canada,” was doing “a poor job with his territory” and began to pressure the dealer to sell—allegedly by threatening to stop supplying him or to modify or eliminate his sales territory. The next month, Tilstra sold out to an adjacent dealership for just over half of what he believed his dealership was worth.

Tilstra’s suit against BouMatic alleged tortious interference and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing with respect to the dealership contract’s requirement of 90 days’ written notice and good cause for termination. Tilstra’s good-faith claim was the only one to survive a motion to dismiss, but a jury found for Tilstra and awarded him $471,124 in damages.

On appeal, BouMatic began by arguing that it had not formally terminated the dealership agreement, that the agreement allowed it to change sales territory in its discretion, and in any event, that it had good cause to terminate Tilstra.

The Seventh Circuit was unimpressed, believing that these arguments elevated form over substance. Though BouMatic may not have formally terminated the dealership agreement, by threatening to eliminate Tilstra’s territory if he didn’t sell it had “eva[ded] the spirit of the bargain” and “abuse[d] [its] power to specify terms”—both forms of bad faith recognized under Wisconsin law. And if BouMatic had “good cause,” it neglected to inform Tilstra of that fact (as required by the contract), if indeed its “good cause” was anything more than the fact that it had found a substitute dealer from whom it thought it could make more money.

The court characterized the remainder of BouMatic’s appeal as a “blunderbuss of objections” to the damages calculations made by Tilstra’s expert witness, Rinaldo Sciannella. BouMatic objected that Sciannella had not attempted to verify Tilstra’s financial statements by engaging the help of outside accountants; the court responded that reliance on hearsay in financial statements is an accepted practice for management accountants under Federal Rule of Evidence 703. BouMatic objected as speculative to Sciannella’s assumption in his calculations that Tilstra’s dealership would have remained as valuable as its recent past; the court approved Sciannella’s calculation as a standard method of business valuation known as the “capitalized earnings” approach, where damages are the sum of the dealership’s discounted future earnings. The court also rejected BouMatic’s arguments that it could have shrunk Tilstra’s territory or that Tilstra could have obtained a comparable dealership from another manufacturer.

The key lesson here for Wisconsin manufacturers is a practical one: when seeking to terminate a dealer, make the decision carefully, proceed with caution, and make every attempt to follow both the letter and the spirit of the applicable dealership agreement.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights