$31\mathrm{.}6$ Termination of a Franchise Kawasaki Motors Corporation $($Kawasaki$),$ a Japanese

corporation, manufactures motorcycles that it distributes in the United States through its

subsidiary, Kawasaki Motors Corporation, U$.$S$.$A$.($Kawasaki USA$).$ Kawasaki USA is a

franchisor that grants franchises to dealerships to sell Kawasaki motorcycles. Kawasaki USA

granted the Kawasaki Shop of Aurora, Inc. $($Dealer$),$ a franchise to sell Kawasaki motorcycles

in Aurora, Illinois. The franchise changed locations twice. Both moves were within the five$-$mile

exclusive territory granted Dealer in the franchise agreement.

Dealer did not obtain Kawasaki USA's written approval for either move, as required by the

franchise agreement. Kawasaki USA acquiesced to the first move but not the second. At the

second new location, Dealer also operated Honda and Suzuki motorcycle franchises and was

negotiating to operate a Yamaha franchise. The Kawasaki franchise agreement expressly

permitted multiline dealerships. Kawasaki USA objected to the second move, asserting that

Dealer had not received written approval for the move, as required by the franchise agreement.

Evidence showed, however, that the real reason Kawasaki objected to the move was because

it did not want its motorcycles to be sold at the same location as other manufacturers'

motorcycles. Kawasaki terminated Dealer's franchise. Dealer sued Kawasaki USA for wrongful

termination. Who wins? Kawasaki Shop of Aurora, Inc. v$.$ Kawasaki Motors Corporation,

U$.$S$.$A$.,188$ III.App$\mathrm{.}3$d $664,544$ N$.$E$\mathrm{.}2$d $457,$ Web $1989$ III.ApLexis $1442($Appellate Court of

Illinois$)$