§486H-10.4  Restrictions on
manufacturers or jobbers in operating service stations; lease rent controls.  (a) 
Beginning August 1, 1997, no manufacturer or jobber shall convert an existing
dealer retail station to a company retail station; provided that nothing in
this section shall limit a manufacturer or jobber from:



(1)  Continuing to operate any company retail station
legally in existence on July 31, 1997;



(2)  Constructing and operating any new retail service
station as a company retail station constructed after August 1, 1997, subject
to subsection (b); or



(3)  Operating a former dealer retail station for up
to twenty-four months until a replacement dealer can be found if the former
dealer vacates the retail station, cancels the franchise, or is properly
terminated or not renewed.



(b)  No new company retail station shall be
located within one-eighth mile of a dealer retail station in an urban area, and
within one-quarter mile in other areas.



(c)  All leases as part of a franchise as
defined in section 486H-1, existing on August 1, 1997, or entered into
thereafter, shall be construed in conformity with the following:



(1)  Such renewal shall not be scheduled more
frequently than once every three years; and



(2)  Upon renewal, the lease rent payable shall not
exceed fifteen per cent of the gross sales, except for gasoline, which shall
not exceed fifteen per cent of the gross profit of product, excluding all
related taxes by the dealer retail station as defined in section 486H-1 plus,
in the case of a retail service station at a location where the manufacturer or
jobber is the lessee and not the owner of the ground lease, a percentage
increase equal to any increase that the manufacturer or jobber is required to
pay the lessor under the ground lease for the service station.



The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to
any existing contracts that may be in conflict with its provisions.



(d)  Nothing in this section shall prohibit a
gasoline dealer from selling a retail service station in any manner. [L 1997, c
257, §3; am L 2002, c 77, §2(3); am L 2008, c 19, §59]



 



Law Journals and Reviews



 



  Price Controls in Paradise:  Foreshadowing the Legal and
Economic Consequences of Hawai‘i's Gasoline Price Cap Law.  27 UH L. Rev. 549.



 



Case Notes



 



  The "substantially advances" formula announced in
Agins v. City of Tiburon is not a valid method of identifying regulatory
takings for which the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation.  Since oil
company claiming that the rent cap provision of Act 257 [L 1997 (§486H-10.4(c))],
on its face, effected a taking of its property argued only a
"substantially advances" theory in support of its takings claim, it
was not entitled to summary judgment on that claim.  544 U.S. 528.



  In an action to recover payments which plaintiffs claimed
exceeded the amount permissible under this section, defendants' motion for
summary judgment granted, as there was no lease renewal.  460 F. Supp. 2d 1215.