¹û¶³´«Ã½

Over the years, I have been reminded on several occasions of a rule the founder of this Shortliner newsletter tried to follow, “Always work to find and share the industry’s good news . . . members already know all that’s bad.” 

Sixty-eight years later, we still hope to use this newsletter to share more information on evolving  opportunities than on challenges facing the industry. However, events since our last issue will make that balance more difficult in this issue than most, even with the pro-business environment and glow of recent tax reform. 

On the national and global front, campaign stump speeches regarding the U.S. placing  additional tariffs on steel have moved one step closer to implementation, and talk of retaliation most often mentions exports of U.S. agricultural commodities as likely targets. That issue is covered in this edition.

In two state capitols, new legislation has been filed that, if passed, would affect the relationship between all equipment manufacturers, regardless of size, their distributors, and the independent dealers who retail their products. In one case, the legislation is fairly clear as to the intent of the authors. In the other, the intent is hiding in amendments we have not yet seen. 

In Kansas Senate Bill 426, what would be removed from the language is as important as what the sponsor proposes to add.

For example, the bill removes this entire section of current law: Nothing in this act shall apply to, or operate or be construed to invalidate, impair or otherwise infringe upon the specific requirements of any contract or dealership agreement between a dealer and a manufacturer entered into prior to the effective date of this act, if such contract or dealership agreement is in effect on the effective date of this act. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a manufacturer who provides in a written dealer agreement for compensation to a dealer for warranty labor costs either as a discount in the pricing of the equipment to the dealer or, a lump sum payment to the dealer, provided such payment is not less than 5% of the suggested retail price of the equipment.

And adds this: Manufacturer’s warranty reimbursement policies and procedures shall be deemed unreasonable to the extent they conflict with any of the provisions of this section.

Any term of a contract, either expressed or implied, that is inconsistent with the terms of this act shall be void and unenforceable and shall not waive any rights that are provided to any person by this act. Repair parts used in warranty repair work shall be reimbursed at the current net parts cost to purchase such parts from the manufacturer plus 15% and the cost of freight.

In Connecticut, HB5191 claims to only extend post-sale warranty work reimbursements that are afforded to the automobile industry to power equipment dealers. In our opinion, this bill is designed to open the door for amendments to make similar sweeping changes we have seen in other New England states over the last few years. 

Where is the good news in all of this? The good news is that thanks to efforts of prior leaders of this Association, including Robert Schnell, our Association’s second executive vice president, whose death is reported in this Shortliner, we are in a position to not only keep members informed of proposed changes in state dealer laws, we are well-funded and ready to address any action our elected leadership deems in our members’ best interest. 

Details on the state legislative proposals mentioned here can be found at .