RON TONKIN GRAN TURISMO TRIAL

'5) Joining with other Fiat automobile dealers to oppose and boycott the appointment of new dealers in the Portland area '4) Persuading Fiat Distributors to cancel its plans to grant plaintiff a franchise agreement so that defendants could maintain a high profit margin for each sale of Fiat automobiles '3) Monopolizing the sale of Fiat automobiles in the City of Portland '2) Attempting to monopolize the sale of Fiat parts in the City of Portland '1) Attempting to monopolize the sale of Fiat automobiles in the City of Portland Plaintiff contends that, in seeking this end, defendants employed improper means and/or acted in illegal restraint of trade by: Plaintiff claimed that defendants, concerned with the effect the proposed franchise *660 would have on their profits, maliciously and intentionally sought to prevent such franchise from being granted. In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendants made personal contact with Fiat in order to dissuade Fiat from entering into a franchise agreement with plaintiff. At some point in 1975, Fiat decided not to pursue the appointment of an additional dealer in Portland. Plaintiff was told of the moratorium on processing his application and its check was returned to it. Fiat then extended that period another 90 days.

RON TONKIN GRAN TURISMO TRIAL

Wakehouse was given a 90 day trial period during which he was to meet certain sales quotas. Thereafter, a regional representative was told by Fiat headquarters to delay processing of plaintiff's application for a franchise. During that same month, Wakehouse flew to New Jersey to meet with the executive officers of Fiat distribution in the United States.

They were also told of plaintiff's application. The defendants were informed by one of Fiat's regional representations in October, 1974, that Fiat was looking for an additional dealer in the Portland area because of the low sales percentage for Fiats in Portland as compared with other areas of the country. Plaintiff submitted a written order to Fiat for automobiles and parts and a bank check for the parts. Plaintiff, after taking certain steps, was assured by the regional representatives that it would be granted the franchise. A tentative agreement was reached between plaintiff and the regional representatives of Fiat. During 1974, plaintiff, also a Portland car dealer, discussed with Fiat personnel the possibility of entering into a written franchise agreement whereby plaintiff would sell Fiat automobiles to the public and provide parts and service to prospective purchasers. We reverse.Дefendant Wakehouse is the president of Wakehouse Motors Inc., the sole dealer of Fiat automobiles, parts and service in Portland. It entered judgment for the plaintiff for $222,615 on the prospective contract count only, finding that the defendant intentionally interfered with a contemplated relationship between plaintiff and Fiat for improper purposes. The trial court, sitting without a jury, made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. The complaint alleged interference with both an actual contract and a prospective contract. Plaintiff brought this action alleging that defendant induced Fiat Distributors, Inc., (Fiat) the United States distributor of Fiat, not to grant plaintiff a franchise to sell Fiat automobiles. With him on the brief was Reiter, Bricker, Zakovics & Querin, Haessler, Stamer & Tilbury, Portland.Д«efore GILLETTE, P.J., SCHWAB, C.J., and CAMPBELL, JJ. Roger Tilbury, Portland, argued the cause for respondent, Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc.

Sweeney, Gilbertson, Brownstein, Sweeney, Kerr & Grim, Portland. *659 Miles Sweeney, Portland, argued the cause for appellants.

WAKEHOUSE MOTORS, Inc., and Ernest Wakehouse, Appellants, RON TONKIN GRAN TURISMO, Inc., Respondent,

Ron tonkin gran turismo