Mike Finnin Ford, Inc. v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

220 F.Supp.2d 970 (2001)

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

P owns two automotive dealerships. Both have a significant amount of computer hardware and software in business use. D had provided some computer-related products and services to P since the early 1980s. In 1997, P began discussions with D as well as other computer service providers regarding his future business. D was pushing its Relationship Marketing System (RMS) software. P attended a regional meeting held by D to inform dealership principals about D products. P heard a presentation on and received promotional literature regarding, the attributes of RMS. Marketing material given to P explained that 'this unique system compiles the customer information into an easy-to-use format' and represented that 'with the strength of RMS, you will be able to increase loyalty and build dealership sales.' RMS would: (1) consolidate customer information and purchase history from all aspects of the dealership operations; (2) consolidate multiple customers to allow the dealer to track 'family' purchases; and (3) facilitate the creation of custom mailings to specified groups of customers by identification of common variables within the full customer database. P was informed that RMS software was a D exclusive' in that D was the only supplier to provide that specific combination of capabilities within one product. P signed a contract which called for installation of RMS, along with other computer upgrades, in spring 1998. P maintains that the exclusive marketing capability offered by RMS was the primary reason he decided to extend his contract with D. A delay in delivery was immediately and P was repeatedly told that the software would be forthcoming shortly. As of this motion, it has not been installed at P's dealerships. D's motion for partial summary judgment seeks dismissal or limitations on each of P's claims against them. The contested issues relate do P's fraud claims.