Nissan vs. Walker-Jones
Nissan, on the other hand, argues that the trial court committed plain legal error. Nissan argues that Nissan’s contractual rights and statutory rights to first refusal are governed under the Transfer Statute. This statute contains clear language and solid construction rules. Nissan, meanwhile, contends that a preliminary injunction would disserve the public interest.
Nissan has been prohibited from selling cars to Walker Jones until the trial court hears the case. Nissan appeals the decision. Nissan must comply with the Transfer Statute when exercising its ROFR, according to the trial court. In addition, the court accepted Nissan’s $10,000 bond as adequate security.
Nissan failed to prove Walker-Jones was not fit to be a Nissan dealer, in addition to violating ROFR. To establish that Walker-Jones is unfit to sell Nissan vehicles, Nissan must demonstrate that his business experience, financial qualifications, and moral character make him unfit for the position.