AEM vs North Dakota – Dealer’s Response to AEM Motion for Injucuction
Case 1:17-cv-00151-DLH-CSM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
|
In one of thirty points, Larsgaard makes the case for "shortlines" #22 In many cases, a main line manufacturer may not produce a particular line of product that has demand in a given region or they may have a significantly inferior product relative to their competitors. As such, in an effort to fulfill farmers' needs, dealers often must establish relationships with other manufacturers in an attempt to fill product gaps and fulfill farmers' expectations. Dealers may expend a substantial amount of time, treasure, and talent in an effort to develop a market for any given non-main line product. Under North Dakota law, it is currently illegal for a manufacturer to prohibit a dealer from purchasing farm equipment that was made by another manufacturer. However, we are seeing some manufacturers include provisions in their contracts that would require dealers to separate both their personnel and facilities in such a manner "as is satisfactory to the manufacturer." Dealers need the ability to choose, display, and offer for sale the products and equipment that North Dakota farmers and ranchers demand.
|
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW LARSGAARD
Matthew Larsgaard, President and CEO of the North Dakota Implement Dealers Association, provides the court with a 30 point, blow-by-blow history of how S.B. 2289 became law. Lays out the need for action by the legislature, and destroys the AEM claim of the bill being rushed through the legislative process without proper hearings, witnesses and debate.
Member Links:
North Dakota Implement Dealers Association's Response in Opposition to AEM's Motion for Preliminary Injuction
NDIDA's legal council make the dealer's case, using for the most part case law, for turning down the request by AEM and the major tractor manufacturers for blocking inforcement of S.B. 2289 pending outcome of this case.
Member Links: