Colorado § 44-20-101 - Legislative declaration.

§ 44-20-101. Legislative declaration.

(1) The general assembly hereby declares that:

(a) The sale and distribution of motor vehicles affects the public interest, and a significant factor of inducement in making a sale of a motor vehicle is the trust and confidence of the purchaser in the retail dealer from whom the purchase is made and the expectancy that the dealer will remain in business to provide service for the motor vehicle purchased;

(b) Proper motor vehicle service is important to highway safety and the manufacturers and distributors of motor vehicles have an obligation to the public not to terminate or refuse to continue their franchise agreements with retail dealers unless the manufacturer or distributor has first established good cause for termination or noncontinuance of the agreement, to the end that there shall be no diminution of locally available service;

(c) The licensing and supervision of motor vehicle dealers by the motor vehicle dealer board are necessary for the protection of consumers, and therefore, the sale of motor vehicles by unlicensed dealers or salespersons, or by licensed dealers or salespersons who have demonstrated unfitness, should be prevented;

(d) Consumer education concerning the rules of the motor vehicle industry, the considerations when purchasing a motor vehicle, and the role, functions, and actions of the motor vehicle dealer board are necessary for the protection of the public and for maintaining the trust and confidence of the public in the motor vehicle dealer board; and

(e) Subject to the United States constitution and the Colorado constitution, this article 20 applies to each sales, service, and parts agreement in effect, regardless of when the agreement was adopted.

Source: L. 2018: Entire article added with relocations, (SB 18-030), ch. 7, p. 41, § 2, effective October 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 12-6-101 as it existed prior to 2018.

ANNOTATION

Annotator's note. Since § 44-20-101 is similar to repealed § 13-11-1, CRS 53, CSA, C. 16, § 420, and § 12-6-101, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

It was held that there was no constitutional inhibition against the licensing and bonding requirements of this article. GMC v. Blevins, 144 F. Supp. 381 (D. Colo. 1956).

It was also held that any misconduct of a plaintiff corporation by violating the Sherman or Clayton acts, did not deprive it of the right to attack the constitutionality of some sections in this article. GMC v. Blevins, 144 F. Supp. 381 (D. Colo. 1956).

Earlier provision held unconstitutional. Jesse M. Chase Casper Co. v. Fugate, 128 F. Supp. 244 (D. Colo. 1955).

Such provision held incomplete. GMC v. Blevins, 144 F. Supp. 381 (D. Colo. 1956).

The title of this act clearly indicates that it deals with persons, because "providing penalties for the violation thereof" could scarcely be construed to relate to penalties imposed upon the vehicles. Corder v. Pond, 117 Colo. 463, 190 P.2d 582 (1948).

Multiple licensing permitted. The automobile dealer licensing statute, this section, does not expressly permit or disallow a salesman to be licensed to more than one dealer. However, § 12-6-118(5)(g) indicates a legislative intent that multiple licensing be permitted. United Buying Serv., Inc. v. State Dept. of Rev., 37 Colo. App. 465, 548 P.2d 1286 (1976).