Amoco Oil Co. v. Torcomian

722 F.2d 1099 (3rd Cir. 1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Amoco (P) owned a service station and Torcomians (D), father and son, wanted to take the station over from the previous operators and become P's franchised dealers. Ds actually operated the station while the negotiations were going on, but they never executed a franchise agreement. P contends that it never promised to make D an official Amoco dealer. P claims that D did not intend to comply with P's guidelines for dealers, including attendance at Dealer Development School, and because he had lied to P personnel, he would not be a suitable dealer. Ds claim they had a franchise relationship with P at least until July 1984. These claims are based upon negotiations with and representations allegedly made by two P agents, Ralph Arata and Robert Plocki. D also claims to have had a landlord/tenant relationship with P. Ds acknowledge they did not attend Dealer Development School, but claim that Arata said that he did not need to in October of 1981. Eventually P filed a suit to eject Ds from the service station, sought a permanent injunction from the continued use, enjoyment and possession of the station, a permanent injunction from the use of P's trademark and logo, a judgment for lost profits of $46,675, a judgment of $12,000 in mesne profits and attorney fees. At the beginning of trial, P attempted to orally amend its complaint to delete the $46,675 claim for damages to foreclose D's right to a jury trial. D countered that lawsuit with a damages suit for $100,000, an injunction to comply with the franchise agreement, lost profits for fraud, a judgment for reasonable attorney fees, and other costs. D demanded a jury trial and the judge refused. From the bench trial, the district court concluded that Ds were at most tenants at will, and that there had never been a valid written or oral lease with P. It further concluded that no representative of P having power to do so had ever told D he was a dealer, and that D, by failing to go to Dealer Development School in October, had failed to fulfill a condition of his becoming an official dealer. D appealed. D contends he was entitled to a jury trial because of his legal claims.