Opinion ID: 1528198
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: (1) Does the language retail rate customarily charged for the same parts require a dealer/franchisee to provide a manufacturer with proof of a specific matching sale of the identical part?

Text: [¶ 18] Ford argues that the statute allows it to require Darling's to provide proof of an actual sale of the same part at the claimed retail rate within the last six months before it reimburses Darling's. Section 1176 requires that a manufacturer reimburse the franchisor for any parts so provided at the retail rate customarily charged by that franchisor for the same parts when not provided in satisfaction of a warranty. The statutory language does not require that a dealer prove it has made an actual sale of a specifically matching part, which might be impossible to prove with new vehicle parts. Instead, section 1176 requires a determination of the rate that a dealer would customarily charge a nonwarranty customer for a part. That determination can be accomplished without requiring proof of a nonwarranty sale, for example, by showing a practice of uniform markup or other pricing mechanism for all parts or for a similar part. If dealers have set similar prices for a part, those prices constitute the retail rate customarily charged for that part, even if it has not been sold yet. (2) If yes, may a manufacturer demand that such a sale have taken place within the six months immediately prior to the making of the claim for reimbursement? If no, what proof can the manufacturer require? [¶ 19] The statute does not prohibit the manufacturer from imposing reasonable verification requirements on dealers or from imposing a time limit on submitting claims for reimbursement. Allowing manufacturers to impose reasonable verification requirements is consistent with the statute's legislative purpose to protect consumers, because it provides a mechanism to ensure that dealers submit claims for reimbursement at bona fide rates. The District Court found that Ford's six month time limit for claim submissions is a reasonable requirement. Section 1176, therefore, does not prohibit Ford from imposing this verification requirement.