3 ms·
Michigan is not discriminating against Tesla. They are not saying "only Tesla may not sell direct to consumer." Instead, they are saying "No auto manufacturer,
by abtinf 12y ago
Michigan is not discriminating against Tesla. They are not saying "only Tesla may not sell direct to consumer." Instead, they are saying "No auto manufacturer, regardless of their state, may sell direct to consumer." Thus, no commerce clause violation.
- gknoy 12y agoWhat would stop Musk from making a company whose sole purpose was to be a Tesla dealership? It would buy cars from Tesla, sell to consumers, and sell Service Arrangements with Tesla, etc.
- adamfeldman 12y agoUsually the dealer laws prohibit manufacturer-owned dealerships
- poizan42 12y agoWhat about a common owner then?
- mandeepj 12y ago> Michigan is not discriminating against Tesla. They are not saying "only Tesla may not sell direct to consumer." I think they took the safest approach
- drivingmenuts 12y agohttp://www.engadget.com/2014/07/17/tesla-motors-us-sales/ http://www.engadget.com/2014/07/17/tesla-motors-us-sales/ Decent article summarizing why Tesla can't sell directly. TLDR: Because auto dealers don't want to have to compete directly with manufacturers. Which makes no sense, seeing as how Tesla doesn't have any dealers that would compete with them, selling their own cars. I like the guy I bought my car from on one level, but if it saves me money on my next car purchase, well, so long dealerships.
- toomuchtodo 12y agoSo Michigan could legislate that any business is not permitted to sell directly to consumers. Great state to live in.
- bmh_ca 12y agoThe commerce clause may be violated if the effect is discrimination. "It is the effect upon commerce, not the source of the injury, which is the criterion." - N.L.R.B. v. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1 (1937) [http://laws.findlaw.com/us/301/1.html http://laws.findlaw.com/us/301/1.html]