Company sues high-end auto dealer for breach of contract over $1.2M

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00
fees
IL file photo

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.

The Rahal company is described in the lawsuit as an automobile dealer and broker of limited-edition performance vehicles. The company’s general counsel said in an email to Indiana Lawyer that it “denies the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself.”

According to the lawsuit, Montana-based IRB entered into a purchase agreement with the Rahal company  on March 19, 2021.

The purchase agreement shows IRB paid the Rahal company a deposit of $1.2 million for the allocation and delivery of the Mercedes.

However, the suit claims 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 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 lawsuit alleges.

The plaintiff is suing for a breach of contract, 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 case is IRB Capital Holdings, LLC v. Graham Rahal Performance, LLC, 29D02-2410-PL-011169.

This story has been updated.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}