-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Automotive News: Tesla wins first round in Massachusetts dealers lawsuit
- Thread starter ToddRLockwood
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
I'm not sure what you are saying. Tesla was very up front and honest with this Sig reservation holder.
I am thrilled with the attitude, focus, product, and value of the Model S.
Granted, they have had some issues with poor communication with a few reservation holders. They had more issues a few months ago and I expect they will have fewer in the near future as they continue to improve.
That being said, isn't this WAY off topic??
Tesla has always said the Sig would cost more than the equivalent non-Sig? I never saw anything about it when I signed up for the Sig. I'll grant the possibility I missed it, but I read every scrap I could find on the Sig before plunking down the $40k. When pricing was finally announced, I fell back to a P within the week.
Norbert
TSLA will win
How do you suggest have they been less than honest, if not by trying to hide the price difference? What do you mean by "up front"? At which point in time should they have been more up front?
- - - Updated - - -
We should continue the discussion here (I guess), where a similar discussion is taking place right now:
Model S Delivery Issues and Communication Concerns - Page 52
In this thread, someone gave me a negative rep point because he/she thinks I'm making excuses for Tesla by mentioning its financial situation. In the thread above I'm explaining that these points relate to how industry experts judge Tesla's situation. Several industry experts. So those are not fanboy "excuses", but valid arguments in this discussion.
From the moment they started accepting customer money for the reservations. Something as simple as "Sigs will cost slightly more and in exchange you receive the earliest possible delivery and while specifics aren't yet known, there will be some unique color/interior choices as well as Signature badging".
As far as I know, until Sig pricing was officially released, there wasn't ever any statement indicating they'd cost more than equivalent general production models.
Norbert
TSLA will win
I now understand, but they avoided making *any* kind of specific statement (as far as I know), in spite of many requests to do so. They left it open. I think they were saying things like that the specific terms have not been determined yet, but in any case, I'd think they left it open because they felt they needed to make that decision at a later time. I think that decision was made only late in 2011, along with other pricing decisions, at a point at which they had a more concrete idea regarding the demand for, and value of, the actual product.
TIME OUT.
If you're not discussing the Massachusetts dealer lawsuit, please move your discussion elsewhere.
If you're not discussing the Massachusetts dealer lawsuit, please move your discussion elsewhere.
NigelM
Recovering Member
Krugerrand
Meow
sublimaze1
8Dec2012 / Leeroy Jenkins
Has Mass done anything other than the dealership lawsuit? (e.g. Texas has the same dealership restriction, but has also disallowed Delivery Specialists into its borders, as well as forbade Tesla to collect taxes up front - the Tax thing means a great deal to those who want to roll it into financing)
Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
It's a shame he quickly turned this into a defense of supply side economics (??) instead of focusing on the stupidity of the law and the overall restraint of trade that it represents. Comparing it to the Hostess situation, which is totally different because it involves private parties voluntarily entering into collective bargaining agreements, is completely inapt. The most egregious thing about the Massachusetts situation is that this statute is on the books, and that the dealers are using/abusing it to try to essentially force Tesla to use dealers in the state. What does that have to do with all of his other examples? His good point gets lost in his ideological rant.
NigelM
Recovering Member
The Socialist State of Texas? (j/k)
- - - Updated - - -
@Arnold: I agree with you Josh, but it was interesting to see the ridiculousness of this story reach Forbes.
From my reading of the actual Massachusetts law, it's about protecting franchise holders from the parent company and the court seems to think so too. That actually makes some sense in view of the investment the dealerships have to make to carry a line of cars, and may be of benefit to the manufacturers. Otherwise who would set up a dealership if there were no protection for their investments? The argument that it benefits consumers seems pretty tenuous to me though.
The Forbes article itself was just more partisan trash IMHO.
The Forbes article itself was just more partisan trash IMHO.
The Memorandum of Decision and Order issued by the judge is very positive for Tesla. To start with, he finds that MSADA and one of the plaintiffs don't have standing because "they are not manufacturers, distributors, or motor vehicle dealers." The remaining plaintiffs (including the local Fisker dealer) also lack standing "because they are not affiliated with Tesla," and that the Supreme Judicial Court (MA's highest court) interpretation of the relevant law is that they are "to protect motor vehicle franchisees and dealers from the type of injury to which they had been susceptible by virtue of the inequality of their bargaining power and that of their affiliated manufacturers and distributors" and that "only dealers of the same line and make,and in certain proximity to the prospective new dealership, may challenge and potentially prevent new competition."
My reading is that MSADA et al. are running into a big ol' stone wall with this judge.
My reading is that MSADA et al. are running into a big ol' stone wall with this judge.
I think this is why some are (not so cleverly) demanding Tesla offer them a dealership opportunity (case B). The not-so-clever part is that they should have coordinated with each other (case B with case A) such that the dealership demand case happened first. If Tesla had acquiesed or the judgement come down against Tesla forcing their hand (case B), then 'standing' would come into play for the other case (case A).
The Natick Board of Selectmen tonight voted 4-1 to grant Tesla Motors Massachusetts a Class 1 Dealer license, conditioned on Tesla Motors assigning the leases to the Natick sales facility. While this may not be the end of the story, it's a big victory. Tesla's counsel's read on the law is that only a rejected applicant can appeal the result of the vote, so the Massachusetts Auto Dealer Association may have limited legal options for a challenge to this license.
Congratulations to GeorgeB and the team!
Congratulations to GeorgeB and the team!
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
EcoHeliGuy
Member
Norbert
TSLA will win
Elon's tweet announcing this approval:
- - - Updated - - -
I suppose in this sentence:
the "and" means "as well": it would have to be both the same make of car (Tesla), as well as being in proximity.
I wouldn't think this depends very much on the judge, as in the Massachusetts law, the restriction (on manufacturer-operated dealerships) is mentioned as a possible violation of the regulations for the business between manufacturer and dealer ('dealer' being defined as a franchised dealer). However in this case there is no such business, and no franchise agreement.
It appears to be like a rule for rental agreements, which lists the rules between a landlord and someone renting a home. These rules do not apply to someone who lives in his own home. If those rules say you cannot have more than one cat without permission, then that does not mean that someone who owns a home (without HOA), also needs to get anyone else's permission for having two cats. Who would even give that permission?
Similar threads
