Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71

Thread: Automotive News: Tesla wins first round in Massachusetts dealers lawsuit

  1. #11
    Senior Member kevincwelch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    1,752
    There is a thread on the Tesla website, but I cannot view it. Is this the case for others? (I am logged on as well.)
    MODEL S 85 | BLUE | VIN 4293 | DELIVERY - 02/16/2013

  2. #12
    TSLA will win Norbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    4,358
    +1 ckessel. saved.

    Dealers trying to be tough, already planning to appeal:

    Robert O'Koniewski, executive vice president of the Massachusetts association, says the group is considering an appeal and other judicial remedies, but it hasn't made a decision on which path to take.
    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by derekt75 View Post
    “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?
    Thanks for the quote, as the link is hard to discover:
    http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA840581120.PDF

    Quote Originally Posted by derekt75 View Post
    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.
    In my naive, non-lawyer, non-expert reading, 93B seemed to apply to the two parties of a franchise agreement, but there is not any such agreement between Tesla and anyone else.
    Buying an EV is one thing, being able to drive it beyond city limits another...

  3. #13
    Senior Member Grendal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    Posts
    1,479
    Quote Originally Posted by derekt75 View Post
    If the decision only said "denied", I'd agree with you, but I think the text of the decision reads a bit stronger than a "well, they're not blatantly breaking the law enough".

    “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.
    The judge threw out the injuction, but didn't just throw out the case. So as far as he is concerned there is at least a basis for the case. Like I wrote, I consider this a "soft" win.

    The quote you cited does imply that the suit is probably going to fail.

    Yeah, for our side.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Grendal View Post
    The judge threw out the injuction, but didn't just throw out the case. So as far as he is concerned there is at least a basis for the case. Like I wrote, I consider this a "soft" win.

    The quote you cited does imply that the suit is probably going to fail.

    Yeah, for our side.
    Sometimes cases will continue in order to get the facts heard and the opinion on the record. That can do a better job of "nipping it in the bud" for the long haul than just throwing it out. Attorneys and justices would then have something to reference in the future if this crops up again.
    Signature 909

  5. #15
    Model S #P683 Blue 85 kWh woof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    607
    Some questions for the legally minded:

    If there really is a Mass. law that is being broken, doesn't that mean the state has to bring charges against Tesla, not dealers?

    If the above is true, and the state is allowing it anyway, then wouldn't the dealer's beef be with the state for allowing it? The dealers could sue the state to get them to enforce the law, but not sue Tesla directly.

    Wasn't there a complaint to the town of Natick selectmen for allowing the Tesla store in the mall (zoning or somesuch). Whatever happened to that?
    --Woof!
    On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

  6. #16
    Senior Member Grendal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Santa Fe, New Mexico
    Posts
    1,479
    Here is a section of the Massachusetts law that NADA is saying Tesla is breaking:

    “Sale” or “sell”, the issuance, transfer, agreement for transfer, exchange, pledge, hypothecation, mortgage in any form, whether by transfer in trust or otherwise, or lease of any motor vehicle or interest therein or of any franchise related thereto; and any option, subscription or other contract, or solicitation, looking to a sale, offer or attempt to sell, or lease in any form, whether spoken or written."

    "(c) It shall be deemed a violation of subsection (a) of section 3 for a manufacturer, distributor or franchisor representative:

    (10) to own or operate, either directly or indirectly through any subsidiary, parent company or firm, a motor vehicle dealership located in the commonwealth of the same line make as any of the vehicles manufactured, assembled or distributed by the manufacturer or distributor."

    And here is a link to the appropriate law in full:

    General Laws: CHAPTER 93B, Section 4

  7. #17
    TSLA will win Norbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    4,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Grendal View Post
    Here is a section of the Massachusetts law that NADA is saying Tesla is breaking:
    As far as I can tell, that section needs to be seen in context:

    Chapter 93B as a whole is a "REGULATION OF BUSINESS PRACTICES BETWEEN MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS"

    And in Section 1, a dealer is defined as:

    “Dealer”, “motor vehicle dealer” or “dealership”, any person who, in the ordinary course of its business, is engaged in the business of selling new motor vehicles to consumers or other end users pursuant to a franchise agreement and who has obtained a class 1 license pursuant to the provisions of section 58 and 59 of chapter 140. It shall not include: (1) receivers, trustees, administrators, executors, guardians, or other persons appointed by or acting under judgment, decree or order of any court, or (2) public officers while performing their duties as such officers.
    - - - Updated - - -

    In other words, operating a dealership would be a violation of the business practices between a manufacturer and a franchised dealer, however there isn't any franchised dealer in this business. And not even a business (the practices of which could be regulated).

    In my naive understanding.
    Buying an EV is one thing, being able to drive it beyond city limits another...

  8. #18
    Model X #1417
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by Norbert View Post
    As far as I can tell, that section needs to be seen in context:

    Chapter 93B as a whole is a "REGULATION OF BUSINESS PRACTICES BETWEEN MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND DEALERS"

    And in Section 1, a dealer is defined as:



    - - - Updated - - -

    In other words, operating a dealership would be a violation of the business practices between a manufacturer and a franchised dealer, however there isn't any franchised dealer in this business. And not even a business (the practices of which could be regulated).

    In my naive understanding.
    Yes, that was my reading as well after plowing through the website. It looks to me like the whole law is about regulating the relationship between franchisees and manufacturers. I didn't see anything that prohibited a manufacturer from setting up a dealership beyond the issue of competing with franchisees.

    Can anyone reference something in the law that says otherwise?

  9. #19
    Senior Member vfx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    CA CA
    Posts
    14,794
    Quote Originally Posted by Grendal View Post
    ...
    (10) to own or operate, either directly or indirectly through any subsidiary, parent company or firm, a motor vehicle dealership located in the commonwealth of the same line make as any of the vehicles manufactured, assembled or distributed by the manufacturer or distributor."...

    Not possible.

  10. #20
    Senior Member stopcrazypp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    3,596
    Quote Originally Posted by Grendal View Post
    The judge threw out the injuction, but didn't just throw out the case. So as far as he is concerned there is at least a basis for the case. Like I wrote, I consider this a "soft" win.

    The quote you cited does imply that the suit is probably going to fail.

    Yeah, for our side.
    I read through the whole decision and I agree more with derekt75. The judge seems to be saying the plaintiffs don't even have a standing to bring this suit at all (perhaps the state does). Plus the article says the plaintiffs are considering appeal (so they are clearly on the losing side right now).
    Because there are tons of crazy people in this world...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Coda Automotive (formerly Miles Automotive Group)
    By Tesla2Go in forum Electric Vehicles
    Replies: 429
    Last Post: 2014-11-21, 01:16 AM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2012-11-11, 10:30 AM
  3. Tesla Article in `Round Miami Beach Magazine
    By Ejoner in forum Roadster
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-07-15, 04:24 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2008-12-17, 05:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •