Court Opinion

ID: 9511448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:04:40.640653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:01.791225
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RICE
specially concurring.
¶46 I concur in the Court’s opinion. The Court has skillfully explained the statutes at issue and has rendered the most plausible interpretation thereof, given their imprecise wording and structure, and given the canons of statutory construction we must apply. The statutes repeatedly use laundry lists of defined business entities, see § 61-4-202(1), MCA (‘[a] new motor vehicle dealer, manufacturer, distributor, factory branch, distributor branch, importer, or franchiser may not engage ...”), but the lists vary from subsection to subsection, leaving the unavoidable impression that the Legislature intended that each subsection would apply only to those business entities which were specifically listed therein. Thus, the Court correctly concludes that Bombardier, if it is not a franchisor, is not subject to the notice provisions of § 61-4-205, MCA-and the administrative proceeding which follows thereafter. Although the Court notes that a manufacturer ‘heed not comply” with this provision at its own risk, I would simply add that such risk includes criminal sanctions under which each day of noncompliance constitutes a separate violation. See §61-4-210(1), MCA.
¶47 The statutes are at times inconsistent. For example, the Court notes that Hi-Tech conducted business as a new motor vehicle dealer *82duly licensed under § 61-4-202(2), MCA. However, under § 61-4-201(12), MCA, a “new motor vehicle dealer”is defined as “a person who buys, sells, exchanges, or ... is engaged in the business of selling new motor vehicles under a franchise ....’’(Emphasis added.) Logically, one cannot be selling under a franchise except through a franchisor. Nonetheless, when consideration is given to the wording and structure of the statutes as a whole, I believe the Court has rendered the correct interpretation. I would suggest that the Legislature undertake review of these provisions for the purpose of clarifying them for the benefit of all concerned.
JUSTICE NELSON joins in the foregoing special concurring opinion.