Opinion ID: 1662059
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of the Regulatory Scheme

Text: In order for an automobile dealer to obtain a license from the M.V.C., certain standards must be met under the terms of § 1254(B). [1] For example, the license application must contain information relating to the applicant's financial standing, the applicant's business integrity, whether the applicant has an established place of business and is primarily engaged in the pursuit, avocation, or business for which a license application is made, as well as such other pertinent information consistent with the safeguarding of the public interest and public welfare. R.S. 32:1254(B). In addition, the applicant must provide a copy of the franchise agreement with the manufacturer or distributor, together with satisfactory evidence that adequate space can be provided for the display of automobiles and that adequate facilities will be available for repairs and service. These qualifications obviously relate to the dealer's capacity to afford honest, fair and competent service to the public. Benson & Gold, having met the above standards, was issued a license by the M.V.C. in 1978. When the M.V.C. denied the application of Benson & Gold for a new license in 1980, it issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its determination. R.S. 49:958. The latter conclusions comprise the M.V.C.'s understanding of the relevant legislation which it administers, as applied to the facts of this case. These conclusions can be grouped into two basic categories. First, the M.V.C. determined that a new license was required whenever a dealer relocated to another parish. If the applicant proposed to relocate to a site within the same community or territory as another same make dealer, the applicant was required to show that the existing dealer had not furnished adequate representation to the particular manufacturer. It was then concluded that Benson & Gold had failed to prove that Bryan Chevrolet had not been providing adequate representation of Chevrolet automobiles within the pertinent area. Second, the M.V.C. determined that it was empowered to consider all factors bearing on the public interest. It then found that the licensing of two Chevrolet dealerships in such close proximity would be economically disadvantageous to both, thereby undermining the welfare of the general public. Ultimately, it is evident that the M.V.C.'s decision rested upon its perception that the location of two same make dealerships 2.5 miles from each other would be potentially destructive of one or both of the dealers, a disservice to the public interest and welfare. These two grounds for the M.V.C.'s decision will be treated separately.