3 ms·
I'm not so sure that's true. The conclusion is that the statute "was intended and understood only to prohibit manufacturer-owned dealerships when, unlike Tesla,
by JackC 12y ago
I'm not so sure that's true. The conclusion is that the statute "was intended and understood only to prohibit manufacturer-owned dealerships when, unlike Tesla, the manufacturer already had an affiliated dealer or dealers in Massachusetts." I think there would have to be a third-party Tesla franchisee in Massachusetts before the AG could sue on their behalf.
- DannyBee 12y agoThat reasoning will be held to be not dicta on the standing issue of private dealers, but would probably be relitigated if the AG sued :) This is because the legal conclusion (under the heading "Conclusion") is limited to the dealers and their private right of action, and thus, only the reasoning that applied to that is considered stare decisis. BUt otherwise, you may end up right. Courts tend to be finicky about this stuff, depending on circumstances.