 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Charlie's Dodge3/1/1991
with Chapter 1345. of the Revised Code, by a supplier subject to other administrative supervision in this state, he shall immediately give written notice of the substance of the complaint or other information to the official or agency having supervisory authority over the supplier."
Appellants contend that under R.C. 1345.08, the Attorney General was required to notify the Motor Vehicle Dealers' Board before proceeding with his investigation. See R.C. 4517.30. Under R.C. 4517.32, the board has authority over matters involving R.C. 4517.53, which provides:
"(A) Each franchisor shall specify to its franchisee in writing the delivery and preparation obligations of the franchisees prior to the delivery of new motor vehicles to retail buyers. A copy of the delivery and preparation obligations, which shall constitute the franchisee's only responsibility for product liability between the franchisee and the franchisor, and a schedule of compensation to be paid franchisees for the work and services they are required to perform in connection with the delivery and preparation obligations, shall be filed by the franchisor with the motor vehicle dealers board and shall constitute the compensation as set forth on the schedule.
"* * *
"(B) Upon delivery of a new motor vehicle, the franchisee shall give the purchaser a copy of the delivery and preparation. Obligations and a written certification that the franchisee has fulfilled these obligations."
This statute addresses the manufacturer's obligation to reimburse its dealers for money the dealers spend on delivery and handling of newly purchased automobiles. This statute does not, however, address the Attorney General's concern of double dipping. That is, the problem of dealers fraudulently charging consumers a fee for delivery and handling when the dealer has already or will be reimbursed by the manufacturer. This practice of fraudulently raising an automobile's sales price by charging for delivery and handling is a violation of the CSPA. Richardson v. Car Lot Co. (1983), 10 Ohio Misc.2d 32, 10 OBR 539, 462 N.E.2d 459.
While we recognize that the Attorney General was required to notify the Motor Vehicle Dealers' Board under R.C. 1345.08, his failure to do so in this case does not detract from his authority to investigate possible consumer fraud on the part of appellants. Accordingly, appellants' second assignment of error is found not well taken.
The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
HANDWORK, P.J., GLASSER and MELVIN L. RESNICK, JJ., concur.
|