Automobile Management Act – Law Requirements

The Automobile Management Act was originally passed by the legislature in reaction to auto insurance. It contained a provision that no officer of a car dealership may require an applicant for insurance to purchase auto insurance. 인천운전연수 This meant that car dealers could deny insurance based on financial ability or preexisting status as an insurance carrier, and that any officer of a car dealership had a fiduciary duty to apply the law fairly and equally to all applicants. The legislature believed that insurance discriminated against minorities, and it also believed that there should be some teeth to protect the individual against unfair treatment.

 

In reviewing the constitutionality of the Automobile Management Act, this Court found that the enacting of the Automobile Management Act did not violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of contract. The Automobile Management Act only requires that each entity involved in automobile trade obtain and retain a license before manufacturing a vehicle in the United States, and does not restrict trade in any manner.

 

Moreover, even if Congress had intended to restrict interstate commerce in order to protect American workers, such a restraint on interstate commerce would likely fail as a practical matter. For these reasons, the majority of this Court held that the challenged sections of the Automobile Management Act are unconstitutional and invalid under both the Supremacy and the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

 

In South Korea, the Automobile Management Act regulates all automobile sales and purchase transactions in the country.

The Automobile Management Act has no provision authorizing the secretary of state to deny a license based on financial ability, and no provision requiring the submission of financial data from applicants to the ministry. Some states have further developed their own statutes that address the issue of foreign trade, but the Automobile Management Act serves as the governing statute for the vast majority of vehicles produced in South Korea.

 

The first step in analyzing constitutionality is to determine if there are any textual elements in the Automobile Management Act that warrant removal of the portions of the Act at issue. To determine if Congress intended to invalidate a part of the Automobile Management Act, this Court must evaluate each of its enactments against the text of the Constitution and determine whether each piece of the Act violates the Constitutional Clause.

 

In a case out of Michigan, the Eleventh Circuit held that Congress did not have the power under the Commerce Clause to invalidate a part of the Automobile Maintenance Act because that part discriminated against the fundamental rights of a person operating a vehicle in Michigan. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that Congress did not have the power to invalidate a provision that required that a person operating a vehicle in Michigan obtain a drivers license before being able to register the vehicle to drive in that state.

Lemon law also applies to automobiles.

Some states have become so notorious for this aspect of lemon law that they have introduced their own statutes to define what a “lemon” is under their laws. Automobile lemon laws vary widely, even within the state lines. Each of these statutes is important to understand because each has a very distinct application in terms of liability and recoveryability.

 

The Automobile Management Act and lemon laws each have very unique rules regarding what a motor vehicle maintenance business is not required to do under the act. Because both acts cover very similar areas, a person can get lemon law information and lemon law assistance from both sources. It is advisable for anyone looking for such information to refer to both sources as a better understanding of both the applicable laws and the details of each specific statute can help one tremendously when dealing with a car owner or mechanic.

 

According to the Eleventh Circuit, because Congress has the power to regulate commerce among states, it can invalidate a law that attempts to discriminate against people who merely want to obtain an opportunity to work. The court additionally found that even if the provision excluding persons over a three-year age from obtaining a drivers license for seven years were constitutional, the legislature had not intended the provision to be enforceable against a fifty-one year old person who had only had one accident and no other traffic violations during the period of his driving career.