Company sues auto dealer for breach of contract, failing to return $1.2M
Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
An Indianapolis area-based automobile dealer has been sued for allegedly breaching a contract and failing to return $1.2 million to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, IRB Capital Holdings LLC, filed the suit Oct. 3 in the Indiana Commercial Court in Hamilton Superior Court, claiming defendant Graham Rahal Performance LLC failed to deliver to IRB a limited-edition Mercedes Project One vehicle.
Graham Rahal is described in the lawsuit as an automobile dealer and broker of limited-edition performance vehicles. The company both secures and delivers the vehicles to its customers.
On March 19, 2021, Montana-based IRB entered into a purchase agreement with Graham Rahal, according to court documents.
The purchase agreement shows IRB paid Graham Rahal a deposit of $1.2 million for the allocation and delivery of the Mercedes.
However, the suit claims Graham Rahal didn’t secure the vehicle and therefore had no plan to deliver it to IRB.
IRB claims any reasonable timeframe for the dealer to provide the vehicle has passed, and in March 2024, the company requested the return of its $1.2 million deposit.
Text messages between the two parties show IRB repeatedly asking Graham Rahal when the money would be returned, with the defendant saying they’d update the plaintiff when the money became available.
As of the date of the court filing, the $1.2 million has not been returned.
The plaintiff is suing for a breach of contract, account stated, unjust enrichment, and rescission. IRB is asking for the $1.2 million to be returned in addition to monetary damages related to the case.
The Indiana Lawyer reached out to both parties for comment on the case.
General counsel for Graham Rahal told Indiana Lawyer in an email, “Graham Rahal Performance LLC denies the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself.”
Attorneys representing IRB told Indiana Lawyer, “It’s our policy not to comment on pending litigation, and we’ll let the public filing speak for themselves.”