You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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".Very good news. This means that they feel the store is not blatantly breaking the law enough to justify preventing them from doing business as usual. I'd say this is actually a "soft" win for now.
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.
“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.
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.
Here is a section of the Massachusetts law that NADA is saying Tesla is breaking:
“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.
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.
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).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.