-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Update on the Salt Lake City Tesla store turmoil
- Thread starter Fiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Mountain & Southwest USA
Tesla waging car-sales fight before Utah Supreme Court
Tesla waging car-sales fight before Utah Supreme Court
Tesla waging car-sales fight before Utah Supreme Court
Yes! I was so glad to see this in the article:
"In court documents filed Monday, Tesla lawyers argued that restricting its sales in Utah violates a free-market policy enshrined in the state constitution."
Utah uniquely has that provision in their state constitution which should make this an obvious and easy win for Tesla in getting the state law blocking them overturned. I am very excited that Tesla is going right for the jugular by basing their arguments on that. It also makes any of the people/groups arguing against them look really corrupt, which is a bonus.
"In court documents filed Monday, Tesla lawyers argued that restricting its sales in Utah violates a free-market policy enshrined in the state constitution."
Utah uniquely has that provision in their state constitution which should make this an obvious and easy win for Tesla in getting the state law blocking them overturned. I am very excited that Tesla is going right for the jugular by basing their arguments on that. It also makes any of the people/groups arguing against them look really corrupt, which is a bonus.
Uh, this was eye-opening:
"In essence, Tesla argues it has a constitutional right to sell cars any way that Tesla prefers. But that's not the law no matter how strenuously Tesla UT tries to cloak its preferred business plan in constitutional garb," Utah Solicitor General Tyler Green wrote in court documents."
What Cracker Jack box did this bozo get his law degree out of? "But that's not the law" DUH! That's EXACTLY what this legal challenge is about! The state law does say exactly that, but this legal challenge is making the case that that law violates the state constitution and should be stricken. That is the very purpose of the state and federal Supreme Courts--to evaluate those laws and determine if they are valid or not, according to the constitutions.
"In essence, Tesla argues it has a constitutional right to sell cars any way that Tesla prefers. But that's not the law no matter how strenuously Tesla UT tries to cloak its preferred business plan in constitutional garb," Utah Solicitor General Tyler Green wrote in court documents."
What Cracker Jack box did this bozo get his law degree out of? "But that's not the law" DUH! That's EXACTLY what this legal challenge is about! The state law does say exactly that, but this legal challenge is making the case that that law violates the state constitution and should be stricken. That is the very purpose of the state and federal Supreme Courts--to evaluate those laws and determine if they are valid or not, according to the constitutions.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Tesla takes Utah car sales fight to state supreme court
Oral arguments started at the Utah Supreme Court today.
Judges asked pro-Tesla questions.
Ruling won't come til weeks or months.
Oral arguments started at the Utah Supreme Court today.
Judges asked pro-Tesla questions.
Ruling won't come til weeks or months.
dhcp
Member
This part at the bottom says it all;
"We sell across the whole world, including China, all through Europe, all through Asia. There're only four places in the world we haven't been able to sell direct — Utah, Michigan, Texas and Connecticut," said Todd Maron, general counsel for Tesla Motors. "Utah is a very important market. It's a very entrepreneurial place. ... It really, I think, is wrong that we can sell in China and not in Utah."
Four places in the entire world that don't allow the sale of a vehicle that people are waiting in line to purchase. Who pay taxes. Who want to help transition to sustainable transportation. Who want to drive an electric car that ISN'T ugly!
"We sell across the whole world, including China, all through Europe, all through Asia. There're only four places in the world we haven't been able to sell direct — Utah, Michigan, Texas and Connecticut," said Todd Maron, general counsel for Tesla Motors. "Utah is a very important market. It's a very entrepreneurial place. ... It really, I think, is wrong that we can sell in China and not in Utah."
Four places in the entire world that don't allow the sale of a vehicle that people are waiting in line to purchase. Who pay taxes. Who want to help transition to sustainable transportation. Who want to drive an electric car that ISN'T ugly!
I asked Representative Coleman if she is going to make another attempt at legislation during the upcoming legislative session and she said she's waiting to see what happens with the suit.
The session starts later this month so apparently there's a possibility of movement on the suit soon.
Well, this stinks. The Utah supreme court ruled against Tesla.
Utah Supreme Court rejects Tesla’s request for license to sell cars here
Utah Supreme Court rejects Tesla’s request for license to sell cars here
This surprised and saddened me.
Since Tesla can sell used cars in the state here's a workaround I thought up this morning. Probably a lot of kinks to work out, but it's a potential start.
1) Contract the buyer/reservation holder to purchase a used car with configuration x, which can be adjusted until date y.
2) Register the car to Tesla Utah as the original owner on the title. By registering the car to a company it can then be sold as "used", even with only delivery miles on the car.
3) The intended buyer/reservation holder is sold the "used" car.
Since Tesla can sell used cars in the state here's a workaround I thought up this morning. Probably a lot of kinks to work out, but it's a potential start.
1) Contract the buyer/reservation holder to purchase a used car with configuration x, which can be adjusted until date y.
2) Register the car to Tesla Utah as the original owner on the title. By registering the car to a company it can then be sold as "used", even with only delivery miles on the car.
3) The intended buyer/reservation holder is sold the "used" car.
ccutrer
Active Member
2) And Tesla Utah then has to pay sales tax on it?
3) And then the buyer is no longer eligible for federal tax credits, or new car financing rates.
Several show stoppers with that strategy. The current workaround really isn't all that bad. You order the car online, they Fedex you some paperwork the week before delivery, which you sign and Fedex back. You pick up the new car at the SLC store, and get a California temporary permit. You then get a VIN Verification (by any police officer, or state emissions and inspections location), and take some paperwork to the DMV. You pay your sales tax at that point, and get your license plate. Sure, it's an extra step you have to do to go to the DMV, but I really liked that I got my plates immediately, rather than waiting around 2 months for a regular dealership to get your plates in, and then mail them to you.
FlyF4
Son of a MX
Bravo to the Utah Supreme Court. They did exactly what courts are supposed to do: interpret the law, not make the law. This was a very clear case of Tesla violating the law, a law that applies to all other auto manufacturers equally. The law in question prohibited manufacturers from owning new vehicle dealers. That law applies to Ford, GM, Toyota and every other manufacturer and if the court had ruled as Tesla wrongfully argued it should, it would have been nullifying an absolutely valid exercise of Utah's right to regulate an industry.
Anyone who thinks that the court should have ruled in Tesla's favor because Tesla is a good company selling good products is asking for anarchy. If enough people from Utah really want Tesla selling cars in the state, they will lobby their legislators to enact a law that allows for that. But to nullify an absolutely enforceable and non-discriminatory law simply because violating that law was a convenient end around for Tesla would have been judicial usurpation of the legislative role.
Anyone who thinks that the court should have ruled in Tesla's favor because Tesla is a good company selling good products is asking for anarchy. If enough people from Utah really want Tesla selling cars in the state, they will lobby their legislators to enact a law that allows for that. But to nullify an absolutely enforceable and non-discriminatory law simply because violating that law was a convenient end around for Tesla would have been judicial usurpation of the legislative role.
Well, there are two sides to this coin. It depends on what was being argued.
(1) Would Tesla new car sales violate the state law? Yes, absolutely. I've read the text of the statute, and it is iron clad with no wiggle room. Auto manufacturers are not allowed to sell direct. Period. So I would have hoped that they were not wasting their time trying to argue that.
(2) Is the law valid? No, definitely not. It clearly violates Article XII, Section 20 of the Utah state constitution. THAT is the part that I was hoping the case would be about. That is where I disagree with you. They are not just to interpret the law, as you said. They also need to evaluate whether laws passed by the legislature comply with the constitution. A state supreme court also has this duty. I thought Tesla was challenging the constitutionality of the law to get it stricken. I want to go find the transcript of the case to see if that was presented and argued.
Similar threads
