ND – SB2289 Press Reports on bill and status
SB 2289 relates to prohibited practices for ag dealerships
SB 2289 relates to prohibited practices under farm equipment dealership contracts, dealership transfers, and reimbursement for warranty repair.
Sometime between Thursday, March 9 and Friday, March 10, the House Agriculture Committee is expected to hear testimony on Senate Bill 2289, said Rep. Cindy Schreiber Beck, R-District 25.
SB 2289 relates to prohibited practices under farm equipment dealership contracts, dealership transfers, and reimbursement for warranty repair.
It states manufacturers, wholesalers or distributors of farm implements, machinery or repair parts may not require or attempt to require farm equipment dealers to accept the delivery of farm equipment, parts or accessories that the dealer has not voluntarily ordered.
“There’s been rules and laws in place, and this is amending some of the sections of (the Century Code) that exist,” Schreiber Beck said. “They can’t require the farm equipment dealer to maintain or stock a level of equipment, parts or accessories. They can’t require them to purchase a minimum amount of farm equipment as a condition for filling an order for farm equipment. It’s the same for parts and accessories.”
SB 2289 does recognize that farm equipment manufacturers may require a dealer to purchase all parts reasonably necessary to maintain operation quality. There would also be no requirement for dealers to establish or maintain exclusive facilities, personnel or display space with manufacturers, or to abandon an existing relationship with a particular manufacturer to renew, reinstate or enter into a dealership agreement.
“If there’s a building and it says ‘John Deere’ on it, now they (could) sell anything out of that particular building,” Schreiber Beck continued.
Noting the bill’s restrictions on manufacturers, Schreiber Beck said she was unsure if it had full support from farm equipment dealers.
“I’m sure it depends on who their manufacturer is and how their organization is,” she continued. “We did hear one representative of the manufacturers, who obviously is against the bill as it stands at this minute. We’re going to take most of the testimony on this next week because of the scheduling issue.”
A voting date in the House for SB 2289 has not been determined. The Daily News will continue to follow this story as it develops.