S. Rep. No. In this case, Defendants provided notice of nonrenewal to Plaintiff, according to requirements of 2804, stating its ground for action to be its determination to sell the premises. However, this court found that Defendants failed to satisfy the statute because the offer to sell the premises was contingent upon renewing the franchise in a supply agreement. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages. Moreover, Plaintiff seeks the award of punitive damages for the violation of the PMPA and attorney fees.
Defendants instead seek for the court to simply disallow the improper nonrenewal of the franchise.
The PMPA provides that, in the case of violation of the renewal provisions, the court shall grant such equitable relief as the court determines is necessary to remedy the effects of any failure to comply with the requirements of section 2802 or 2803 of this title, including declaratory judgment, mandatory or prohibitive injunctive relief, and interim equitable relief. The court finds that such drastic equitable relief is unnecessary to remedy the effects of the improper nonrenewal. Plaintiff does not have an independent statutory right to purchase the premises. The PMPA in effect restricts Defendants' ability to sell the property to anyone other than Plaintiff. This lawsuit has indeed prevented Defendants from selling the property at all at this time.