-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
New Mexico developer suing Tesla over lost electric car factory
- Thread starter Kevin Sharpe
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
I read that in Wired today. (Tesla Sued by New Mexico Real Estate Developer | Autopia | Wired.com)
If Rio Real Estate Investment Opportunities had a case, I don't see why they waited until now to sue. Perhaps they figure now Tesla has deeper pockets. They claim they signed a deal back in 2007. That was clearly way premature for Tesla to move forward on the then Whitestar. Plans for a plant in San Jose were scraped when the details of the ATVM loan program required using a brownfield sight. Such requirements would have similarly scuttled plans for the location this New Mexico developer had scouted.
If Rio Real Estate Investment Opportunities had a case, I don't see why they waited until now to sue. Perhaps they figure now Tesla has deeper pockets. They claim they signed a deal back in 2007. That was clearly way premature for Tesla to move forward on the then Whitestar. Plans for a plant in San Jose were scraped when the details of the ATVM loan program required using a brownfield sight. Such requirements would have similarly scuttled plans for the location this New Mexico developer had scouted.
Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
It's weird to bring the case so long after the alleged breach, but as long as the breach of contract statute of limitations is five years, they should be fine. I assume that the timing is intended to pressure Tesla to settle so as to avoid negative publicity as their cars start rolling out.
Tesla smartly removed the case to federal court. Just based on reading the Complaint and Answer, I think Tesla has a good defense to this case. The "contract" they signed is really just an agreement to enter into a contract/lease. These are pretty hard to enforce. To the extent that the developer spent hard money in anticipation of Tesla signing a lease, they may be entitled to recovery of that under the concept of promissory estoppel, but otherwise I don't see any big exposure for Tesla. They can settle cheap, but I assume the developer is counting on home court advantage to pressure Tesla to pay more than the case is worth.
Tesla smartly removed the case to federal court. Just based on reading the Complaint and Answer, I think Tesla has a good defense to this case. The "contract" they signed is really just an agreement to enter into a contract/lease. These are pretty hard to enforce. To the extent that the developer spent hard money in anticipation of Tesla signing a lease, they may be entitled to recovery of that under the concept of promissory estoppel, but otherwise I don't see any big exposure for Tesla. They can settle cheap, but I assume the developer is counting on home court advantage to pressure Tesla to pay more than the case is worth.
So far the statements from our forum lawyer and our forum dentist :biggrin: Who else want's to chime in?
linux admin: that case seems hardly rooted.
car nut: I don't see that gather any traction.
...?
Tommy
Member
I mentioned the case to the gal that cleans and presses my shirts; she says Tesla should counter sue and take the developer to the cleaners! Go figure.:biggrin:
Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
... and Satan thinks there's no chance in hell.
The real question is, does the comedian think any of these jokes are funny?
The real question is, does the comedian think any of these jokes are funny?
AndyM
Member
spatterso911
P100DL - Raven
I know I fanned the flames... but as moderator I should probably be sending most of this thread to Off Topic!
spatterso911
P100DL - Raven
Similar threads
- Article
