Dicker
told the Goodman that Goodman would be able to have a franchise selling
radios.In reliance on this
promise, Goodman hired salesmen and tried to sell radios.However, Dicker changed their
minds. Goodman sued.
Trial
Court found in favor of Goodman.
Goodman
argued that Dicker, by their representation and conduct, induced him to
incur expenses in preparing to do business under their franchise.
Dicker
unsuccessfully argued that the franchise, if granted, could be terminated
at-will and imposed no duty to sell or buy radios, so there should be no
liability.
Appellate
Court agreed and said that the Trial Court was correct in awarding the
Goodman's damages based on how much he spent in reliance on having the
franchise and being able to sell radios. Dicker, however, are found to be
not liable for lost profits on an initial order of radios.
The
true measure of damage is the loss sustained by expenditures made in
reliance upon the assurance of a dealer franchise.
