Virginia Dealer Association suing Tesla to prevent new store openings

[bonnie]

Paragraph # 9 should allow Tesla to open up another dealership and prevent VADA from winning in my opinion, even though paragraph # 3 limited to "only one" dealership. VADA is being anti-competitive and desperate. Nothing good is coming from their lawsuit, except for challenging a technicality in an agreement.

#3 is not a mistake or a technicality. It only clarifies that the settlement agreement is for one store and one only. It doesn't say 'and that is the maximum number that will be opened'. It is only saying that this settlement agreement authorizes Tesla to open the Tyson Corners facility. Going to the DMV to get permission to open another facility did not violate anything in this agreement. It's just this agreement doesn't apply to anything outside of Tyson Corners.

Make sense?

 

[hoang51]

#3 is not a mistake or a technicality. It only clarifies that the settlement agreement is for one store and one only. It doesn't say 'and that is the maximum number that will be opened'. It is only saying that this settlement agreement authorizes Tesla to open the Tyson Corners facility. Going to the DMV to get permission to open another facility did not violate anything in this agreement. It's just this agreement doesn't apply to anything outside of Tyson Corners.

Make sense?

View attachment 152521

I was pointing out that VADA is relying on # 3 as a technicality to prevent Tesla from opening up another dealership. I can see why VADA is relying on paragraph # 3, because # 3 allows a dealership (note singular) with such condition presented in (a) to be opened in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I do agree that paragraph # 9 allows them to seek from the Commissioner more opportunities to open up another dealership without breaking the agreement. Also, there are many other supporting evidences in the agreement that any Tesla attorney can use to present that opening up more dealerships are favorable to consumers and for the public interest, which will further beat down VADA. VADA has virtually no grounds to stand on to oppose Tesla. They're despicable.

 

[diamond.g]

I sent a message to the governor's office. I hope they allow the Richmond site to move forward. It would be easier for me to get to, plus it is far closer for my father than having to go all the way to Tyson's.

 

[bhzmark]

Here is my summary of the key points of the VA settlement agt dated 9/18/2013

Recitals:
Tesla requested a hearing with the Commissioner under VA Code 46.2-1572(4) and 46.2-1573 to open a dealership in VA
Commissioner denied it; Tesla appealed in Case 2013-10491
VADA got involved also.
All three sides agreed to the settle the Case on these terms:
1. Tesla dismisses its appeal in Fairfax Circuit Court based on the reps and terms of this agreement, but this agreement and the dismissal of the case has no effect on future dealership applications.

3. Commissioner authorizes Tesla to do what it was required to do under the law (46.2-1572) anyway, viz open a dealership in Fairfax/Loudoun/Alexadria Counties and Tesla must get a license from the MVDB under 46.2-1508 (which shall not be delayed by the VA govt).

4. Key section: After 30 months from when Tesla gets its dealership license "Telsa may continue to own and operate said dealership unless a person or entity with standing to bring an action under 46.2-1572(4) shows a willingness and ability to, consistent with the public interest without otherwise being contrary to law, serve as a Tesla franchise dealer." So it seems that under the anticompetitive VA law that protects the racket of VADA members to keep their oligopoly on the car market, Tesla's ability to keep its dealership license for the Tyson's store is subject to someone winning an action that they have the willingness and ability to be a Telsa franchise dealer.

6. To the extent the VA law banning a mfr from operating a service center in 46.2-1572 would apply to Tesla, it won't apply to the Tysons dealership.



Ex A: DMV decision dated April 22, 2013

On page 3 the DMV recites the very interesting fact that "no candidate dealer has stepped forward to suggest that it could operate as an independent dealer". The DMV then recites that while there is no evidence of dealer candidates, and none came forward, and FAirfax county is full of wealthy sophisicaed business people and none came forward suggesting that they could run a Telsa dealership, the DMV pretends that they don't have enough info to find that there is no dealer independent of Telsa to run a franchise without further evidence and thus "I am unable at this time to authorize Tesla to operate a dealership in VA"

probably knowing that this was a laughable decision and would surely lose on appeal to any remotely intelligent judge, the DMV quickly (just a few short months later) agreed to this settlement, basically reversing the laughable April 2013 decision.

 

[chickensevil]

Please see the following update on this:

Tesla seeking to open Richmond facility

Tesla has asked for those who can provide support on Thursday's hearing, that it would be appreciated!

 

[bhzmark]

In addition to the settlement agreement posted above and my summary above here are the key parts of the law:

" It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle manufacturer . . . to own, operate, or control any motor vehicle dealership in the Commonwealth. However, this section shall not prohibit:
. . .
4. The ownership, operation, or control of a dealership by a manufacturer, factory branch, distributor, distributor branch, or subsidiary thereof if the Commissioner determines, after a hearing at the request of any party, that there is no dealer independent of the manufacturer or distributor, factory branch or distributor branch, or subsidiary thereof available in the community or trade area to own and operate the franchise in a manner consistent with the public interest;" § 46.2-1572. Operation of dealership by manufacturer
"It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle manufacturer . . . to own, operate, or control, either directly or indirectly, any motor vehicle warranty or service facility located in the Commonwealth." § 46.2-1572.1. Ownership of service facilities

It appears that this is a hearing that is all about what is in the interests of the public. The key point at the hearing to focus on how there are no independent dealers who could sell and service Teslas "in a manner consistent with the public interest"

That is two part issue:
1) are there any dealers who could sell and service Teslas?
2) if there are some who would dare to try, would they do so in a manner consistent with the public interest?

 

[SR22pilot]

A dealership spokesperson posted in the Virginia Pilot. You can find it here:

http://pilotonline.com/opinion/colu...cle_19088457-c354-575d-9874-c352738d47be.html

There aren't any comments yet. Same BS as usual.

 

[TexasEV]

The "play by our state's rules" argument is the same focus-group tested phrasing the auto dealer cartel uses in other states where the law prohibits manufacturers from selling cars to the public. But Virginia is different, it's law has an exception if DMV finds there isn't an independent dealer who can operate in the public interest. Tesla is playing by the rules in participating in a hearing on this. It's not like they went ahead and opened the store anyway. It's using the process available to it under Virginia law.

 

[Kandiru]

The great thing about our civilization is that records are being kept a lot better. I can imagine situations like the antielectric lobbying bringing smiles in the lips of 4th graders reading history books cca. 2070.

 

[bonnie]

A dealership spokesperson posted in the Virginia Pilot. You can find it here:

Donald Hall: Tesla should play by Virginia's rules

There aren't any comments yet. Same BS as usual.

There's a comment now.

 

[bhzmark]

Excellent comment. Worth sharing for all to see. Pasted below:

With all due respect to the author, he's completely misread the law & Tesla's position. The law provides that IF it is not in the public's best interest to use an independent dealership, Tesla may sell direct. The issue is if there is a dealership who can act in the best interest of the public. I say no, there is not.

-- Price of cars purchased through independent dealerships are higher - An in-depth analysis by Goldman Sachs concluded that selling cars directly to consumers would knock nearly 10 percent off the cost of an average car–a savings of $2,225 for a $26,000 vehicle.
(Newt Gingrich: Christie and Tesla)

-- With a few exceptions, dealerships that also sell traditional gas-powered cars have been shown to ignore the electric vehicles from their manufacturer. There are many stories of EV owners having to demand to be shown an EV. Why? Because the dealership doesn't get service revenue from a car that doesn't need oil changed and spark plugs switched.

FTC has weighed in on this whole 'dealership vs. sell direct' kerfuffle and concluded that the consumer is perfectly capable of choosing the business model that works best. Who decides how consumers should shop? | Federal Trade Commission

VA dealerships have enjoyed the umbrella of protectionist laws because that is what they chose & lobbied to get. But the intention was never to stifle free trade.

• Reply
• Share

0
0

18 minutes ago
Bonnie Norman, Loomis, CA
Regarding the author's assertion that Tesla agreed to only open one store in Virginia... that's 100% untrue.

I filed for a copy of that settlement agreement under VA's Open Records law. The settlement specifically calls out that it only applies to the store under discussion and does not have anything to do with future properties that Tesla may choose to open.

 

[bonnie]

If nothing else, that guest editorial by head of VADA tells everyone what tomorrow will be focused upon.

With you all in spirit!

 

[chickensevil]

If nothing else, that guest editorial by head of VADA tells everyone what tomorrow will be focused upon.

With you all in spirit!

Thanks for all you do, Bonnie! You could easily sit in CA where the laws a sensible for Tesla and not worry about our problems, but instead you do what you can to help the other states and spreading the word. Seriously, thank you.

 

[bonnie]

Thanks for all you do, Bonnie! You could easily sit in CA where the laws a sensible for Tesla and not worry about our problems, but instead you do what you can to help the other states and spreading the word. Seriously, thank you.

Thanks ... the dealership lobby really hit a hot button with me during the stuff in Iowa and Tennessee a year or so ago. I remember thinking 'oh HELLLL no!' and thinking this was a battle they should not want to take on. But they did. I just hate seeing the intent of the law perverted and admittedly enjoy their whack-a-mole approach with different tactics in each state. Keeps us on our toes! They're not going to stop. But what they didn't factor in was the grass roots support from the EV community and the lack of love for dealerships from their own customers. Major strategic error.

 

[MikeL]

Hopefully the poor dears are ever so painfully aware of the hundreds of thousands of us that stood in line to reserve the NEXT Tesla. Panic is sooo not attractive.