Ford Motor Credit Support Agreement
On January 23, 2002, Lincoln Mercury announced to DLMI its intention to terminate the franchise agreements of DLMI lincoln and Mercury. DLMI then protested to the California New Motor Vehicle Board, pursuant to the california Vehicle Code Section 3060, to protest the proposed termination of its franchises. On or about April 17, 2002, DLMI filed a separate petition with the Board of Directors, pursuant to section 3050 (c), that DLMI was prejudiced by Lincoln Mercury`s conduct in supplying unwanted and disorderly vehicles to DLMI. The petition contained allegations that Lincoln Mercury was responsible for DLMI in several ways. The case is referred to the court on two motions, one by the plaintiffs and counter-accused Ford Motor Credit Company (“Ford Credit”), and the other by the third-party defendants Ford Motor Company, Lincoln Mercury Division (“Lincoln Mercury”). In the underlying case, Ford Credit makes two infringement and security claims against defendant Michael Daugherty, accusing it of inciting it to enter into a wholesale and capital loan and debt security by promising full payment, but that Daugherty violated those security agreements. Complete to 2-6. Daugherty responded and filed a counter-action against Ford Credit. Daugherty and Daugherty Lincoln-Mercury Inc. (“DLMI”) also filed a third-party complaint against Lincoln Mercury. You can also view your contract details by logging into your Ford credit account. You can also click here to order a copy of your financial contract if you can`t find your original.
At the end of your agreement, you have three options: Daugherty claims that he executed a Wholesale Guaranty and Promissory Guaranty with the Ford credit, which is “my [d]e Daugherty personally responsible for a certain debt that DLMI supposedly owes to Ford Credit”. Id. DLMI and Daugherty claim that DLMI`s alleged debt was generated by a common system to increase the bottom line with ford credit and have Lincoln Mercury vehicles built and delivered against this raised floor line even after the loan was suspended. Id. at 23. These two means describe a “common system” in which Ford Credit allegedly acted illegally to “increase DLMI`s flooring credit without DLMI`s consent or knowledge.” The alleged “fraud” in these two assertions does not relate to alleged misrepresentations of Lincoln Mercury`s market share, but to the process of ordering the vehicles previously referred to by the Board.