Yay for common sense. This quote amuses me:
They're so confident in the value, you see, that they're doing Tesla a favor here by suing them so that Tesla doesn't make a mistake. No, it's not about NADA, this is just NADA being concerned for Tesla. Honest."Tesla may not yet recognize the value of the independent, franchised dealer system, but as its sales increase, NADA is confident it will re-examine its business model," Montana dealer and NADA Chairman Bill Underriner said in the statement.
Thrilled to hear this.
PLEASE NOTE: Posts are the copyrighted intellectual property of the author, and are intended as part of a conversation within this forum. My words may NOT be quoted outside this forum, without my express consent.
Roadster Sport 2.5 #1194, XP90D Sig #2, Founders X (VIN TBD) Model X Status updates on twitter
Either do it the way we do (irrespective of whether you like it or not) or we will make sure you have no other choice, and we will do it in a way that seems in the best interest of the masses.
Here's the text:
A Massachusetts judge has denied a request by dealers for a preliminary injunction against Tesla Motors Inc., which will allow the automaker to operate its store in suburban Boston as the dealers' lawsuit against the company proceeds.
The ruling, filed Friday, is an early setback for the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association and individual dealerships that sued Tesla on Oct. 16, claiming the electric-vehicle maker has violated Massachusetts' licensing, consumer protection and franchise laws. The lawsuit poses a challenge to Tesla's strategy of owning and operating its own retail stores, rather than granting franchises to dealers as other automakers do.
The dealers asked the Massachusetts Superior Court for a restraining order and injunction that would stop the Tesla-owned showroom in Natick, Mass., which opened Sept. 28, from doing "anything other than an unstaffed display of a locked automobile." To get an injunction in Massachusetts, as in federal court, plaintiffs must show they are likely to prevail in the case and will otherwise suffer irreparable harm.
Here is the link to the Automotive News article about the denied injunction:
Model S 85kW, White/Black Leather/Lacewood/21 inch wheels/Tech/Air Suspension/Sound Studio Package/CF Spoiler/Parcel Shelf/Twin Chargers
So good. We, of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, are heartily grateful to hear the news.
Sadly I missed this thread and posted elsewhere. Moderators may move my comments as needed, preferably to the doorstep of NADA.
"Tesla may not yet recognize the value of the independent, franchised dealer system, but as its sales increase, NADA is confident it will re-examine its business model," Montana dealer and NADA Chairman Bill Underriner said in the statement. "Other companies such as Daewoo did. All companies should be complying with existing laws in the same way dealers are required to."
This was clearly spoken by someone with a solid footing in the previous century.
Last edited by ToddRLockwood; 2012-11-22 at 07:27 AM.
I heard a Satellite Radio advertisement on The Model S. It was an AUTOBLOG.COM ad and they were talking about the "S".
“There is nothing in American Honda to suggest that the legislative purpose to protect the public expands standing under 15(a) to allow any unaffiliated motor vehicle dealer to sue any manufacturer”.
So the motion was denied because the plaintiffs had no standing to bring suit. and if they have no standing to bring suit, then how will they win the lawsuit?
and the rationale that the plaintiffs don't have standing makes sense to me: they're not being directly wronged, and there's no public interest in allowing a Fisker dealer to sue Tesla motors for the way Tesla Motors treats its [nonexistent] dealers.
Blue Model S Perf with Pano Roof, Black Interior, Carbon Fiber Accents, 21" Silver Wheels, Sound, Tech, delivered Dec 2012
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)