New Jersey White House Petition

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Sorry, but someone have to explain to me, for what we fighting here. I bought several new cars from different dealers and never paid MSRP, or bought things that I do not want or need. Always satisfied with deal that I got, and did not mind to drive extra miles if deal was much better than offered locally. Wonder if with direct factory sale to public it will be possible to negotiate price, or stores will have ability to set their prices. If not, and price is fixed, how this will help me as customer?
 
Would you like to only get your hamburgers from McDonalds, Burger King and other franchise outlets, or would you like to have the choice to purchase from an independent burger joint. It's a similar situation. The independent burger joint is not a threat to McDonalds, and Tesla selling cars is not a threat to GM, and we should not have laws keeping these independent companies from selling to the public.
 
EdmondLeaf said:
Sorry, but someone have to explain to me, for what we fighting here. I bought several new cars from different dealers and never paid MSRP, or bought things that I do not want or need. Always satisfied with deal that I got, and did not mind to drive extra miles if deal was much better than offered locally. Wonder if with direct factory sale to public it will be possible to negotiate price, or stores will have ability to set their prices. If not, and price is fixed, how this will help me as customer?
Tesla still has to compete in the market on price even if they are "fixing" the price... of Teslas only. Government has no business dictating how the sales channel for automobiles must be structured. This is a simple matter of politicians being bought off to protect the business interests of middlemen.
 
It is a states rights issue. The Fed. Gov. already violates the Constitution and sticks it's nose where it does not belong on too many issues. Make your case to the voters of NJ. and let them tell the "elected" how they want their state run.
 
GIBBER said:
It is a states rights issue. The Fed. Gov. already violates the Constitution and sticks it's nose where it does not belong on too many issues. Make your case to the voters of NJ. and let them tell the "elected" how they want their state run.
I'm not a great student of history but isn't that what they said about slavery and civil rights? When state law becomes unconscionable... or blatantly corrupt.
 
GIBBER said:
It is a states rights issue. The Fed. Gov. already violates the Constitution and sticks it's nose where it does not belong on too many issues. Make your case to the voters of NJ. and let them tell the "elected" how they want their state run.
I don't think it's a states rights issue once it becomes control by monopolies - that's federal I think. Attorneys - is this an antitrust/anticompetitive practices problem?
 
I would sign it, but I've decided against participating in the enslavement of my fellow man with petitioning (begging my masters) and voting (choosing rulers for not just me but everyone else). Yes, roll those eyes, I'm a nutcase anarchist. But I wish Musk and the rest of the folks at Tesla the best.

I don't think it would be considered anti-trust since the politicians got their pay off one way or another from the dealers. This is good old fashioned American corporatism, where greed can buy off and use the force of the state to eliminate competition and consolidate power.

'Merica!
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
GIBBER said:
It is a states rights issue. The Fed. Gov. already violates the Constitution and sticks it's nose where it does not belong on too many issues. Make your case to the voters of NJ. and let them tell the "elected" how they want their state run.
I'm not a great student of history but isn't that what they said about slavery and civil rights? When state law becomes unconscionable... or blatantly corrupt.

Please compare apples to apples, this is clearly not a civil rights issue.
 
GIBBER said:
Please compare apples to apples, this is clearly not a civil rights issue.
As I wrote that I thought about clarifying that the ability to buy a luxury car directly from a manufacturer is not on the same plane as civil rights, but thought it went without saying. My point is whether a state enacting a law that is unconscionable can or should be overridden by federal law or federal courts. Isn't that what it means for something to be ruled "unconstitutional" or in violation of federal law? If that weren't the case, wouldn't you have already had some states opt out of Obamacare? (although many argue that is an overreach of enumerated powers)
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
... My point is whether a state enacting a law that is unconscionable can or should be overridden by federal law or federal courts. ...
These situations certainly exist, but this is hardly one of them. The original dealership protection laws were written for good reasons. Without them, the manufacturers could/would wait for a dealer to build their business, then simply cherry pick the best locations and turn them into company stores, even though they had granted a franchise by contract. It is certainly arguable whether a company like Tesla, which has no dealers to compete with, should be subject to these laws, but it's hardly a federal case. Let Tesla fight it out in the court of public opinion and the state legislatures.
 
What would be really interesting to know is how important the "stores" are, vs galleries where people can look at the car, but then have to go home and place their order over the web site. My guess is it's pretty important, even though I think of this as an independent thinking tech savvy group of buyers, there's still something to be said for that personal interaction with a "sales consultant" for a lot of customers, nudging them into actually pushing the button on a major purchase like this.
 
davewill said:
The original dealership protection laws were written for good reasons. Without them, the manufacturers could/would wait for a dealer to build their business, then simply cherry pick the best locations and turn them into company stores, even though they had granted a franchise by contract.
How is that a good reason? If somebody invests money in a franchise and there is no protection for them in the contract and the franchisor subsequently screws them, isn't that simply a case of a guy making a bad business decision? Seriously, if I spend half a million dollars for a starbucks franchise (if they even have them, I don't know) and starbucks decides to open a company store right next to me and put me out of business, I was a fool for signing a contract that didn't have some protections against that in the agreement. And how successful will starbucks be getting new people to invest in franchises if they screw over their business partners like that?

It should not be the role of government to legislate contract terms to assure channel equity. I'm all for consumer protections, but cmon, AutoNation can take care of themselves.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
... It should not be the role of government to legislate contract terms to assure channel equity. I'm all for consumer protections, but cmon, AutoNation can take care of themselves.
The dealerships weren't always big businesses. Be that as it may, it STILL isn't a federal case. Tesla and the people of NJ can hash it out.
 
It is easy enough to buy a Tesla online. They can't stop Tesla from putting in Service centers, and that is where most folks will end up taking delivery of a car that they purchased from California over the internet. Pretty much like buying an iPhone over the internet except instead of UPS delivering it you have to go get it at the Service center. The biggest headache is that now the owner will have to deal with some of the paperwork for importing a car to the state, that normally a dealership would handle. Without its Dealer license, Tesla cannot do this paperwork for the owner. I'm sure they will find a way to make it easy on the customer, but they cannot physically do it. It is pretty much like Texas who has the same rules in effect, and it has not seemed to slowed down the sales of Model S in Texas much. I'm sure Tesla would like to get this fixed before they start selling in large volume for the Model E, but they have 3-4 years to get the laws worked out. These laws will be removed eventually. The auto dealer association can fight it all they want, but it will eventually be changed to allow Tesla to sell without the need for a middleman to file the paperwork with the state.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
GIBBER said:
It is a states rights issue. The Fed. Gov. already violates the Constitution and sticks it's nose where it does not belong on too many issues. Make your case to the voters of NJ. and let them tell the "elected" how they want their state run.
I'm not a great student of history but isn't that what they said about slavery and civil rights? When state law becomes unconscionable... or blatantly corrupt.

@LTLFT - you're correct
@Gibber - you're correct but also incorrect - this can very very easily fall into interstate commerce which is explicitly called out in the duties of the federal government
 
EdmondLeaf said:
Sorry, but someone have to explain to me, for what we fighting here. I bought several new cars from different dealers and never paid MSRP, or bought things that I do not want or need. Always satisfied with deal that I got, and did not mind to drive extra miles if deal was much better than offered locally. Wonder if with direct factory sale to public it will be possible to negotiate price, or stores will have ability to set their prices. If not, and price is fixed, how this will help me as customer?

I am surprised and disappointed that you are even asking this question.

How can a middleman deliver a product at the same or cheaper price than the manufacturer ? Obviously they can't. So what you are seeing is a market competition in which you need to work hard in getting the best deal of "getting ripped of the least".

If Honda fixes the price of Accords at $25K, of course you cannot negotiate a price. But with the middleman in place, you can negotiate a price between $30K to $27K among different dealers and strike an amazing deal at $26.5K and can brag to your friends who got ripped off by the same dealer.
 
Back
Top