Slashdot Mirror
Utah Supreme Court Ruling Bars Direct Sales of Teslas Through a Subsidiary (arstechnica.com)
The Utah Supreme court has ruled on Monday that the state's regulators could prohibit an auto manufacturer from having ownership interest in a dealer. "In what the court called 'a narrow, legal decision,' it said that it wouldn't weigh in on whether allowing the state's Tax Commission to prohibit direct sales from Tesla's wholly owned subsidiary was the best policy for residents of Utah," reports Ars Technica. "Instead, the court said its job was simply to determine whether the commission could legally make that prohibition." From the report: Tesla created its subsidiary, Tesla UT, to be able to sell new cars in Utah, but the State Tax Commission ruled that the subsidiary needed a franchise agreement. Tesla UT entered into a partnership with its parent company, but the commission said Tesla couldn't have a financial interest in Tesla UT's franchise. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, "Attempts were made in 2015 and 2016 to change Utah law to accommodate Tesla, but the car dealers and other automakers rebuffed the efforts." A Tesla spokesperson told Ars, "The Utah ruling is disappointing for Tesla and all Utah consumers interested in consumer choice, free markets, and sustainable energy. We will pursue all options to ensure that Tesla can operate in Utah without restriction. In the meantime, we will continue to provide service and limited sales activities (through our used car license) at our location in South Salt Lake City."
Thank God that the deep red state of Utah, is showing how the free market is supposed to operate.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
We can't have collusion between auto companies and dealers. The consumer would be totally shafted.
Thanks for keeping businesses honest, Republicans.
If we know that maybe we could crowd-fund the purchase of enough to get any law we want passed.
Here are the benefits of a dealer network as provided by the National Automobile Dealers Association:
1) Better pricing when there are lots of dealers in your location. Bad pricing when there few. 2) Manufactures gain free distribution channel that they would otherwise have to pay for themselves.
All I see is a non-efficient layer that extracts profits by jacking up prices.
Does anyone actually believe, or at least legitimately understand the position, that auto manufacturers should not be able to sell directly to consumers? I'm genuinely curious. There are many cases of seemingly anti-consumer regulation where I can at least comprehend the logic of the other side (net neutrality being the first that comes to mind), but in this case I don't see anyone benefiting from this regulation other than entrenched dealership groups.
I'm not an American, but couldn't this be considered interstate commerce which would be federally regulated?
Wendover is about a 2 hour drive from Salt Lake City. Many of the Casio's supply a "fun bus" that ferry people from UT to enjoy all the other things that are illegal, too. I'm just sad that UT will, once again, miss out on taxes that they should be getting.
Quote: "Attempts were made in 2015 and 2016 to change Utah law to accommodate Tesla, but the car dealers and other automakers rebuffed the efforts."
I know Utah is weird, but the "car dealers" and "automakers" have a veto over state government and the media reports this as though it's somehow normal? What part of "democracy" do Americans not understand?
Sometimes the "writing on the wall" is blood spatter...
I'll summarize my position for any readers still here. glitch! wrote:
No. The legislature so often passes questionable bills, saying that the courts will judge their intent. The courts often say that the bills should have been more specific. I say that a court should look for JUSTICE and not the letter of the law. If a law is just 90% of the time, then a case should be dismissed 10% of the time. Because it is not just in that case. Strict interpretation is wrong.
Sorry, right there, glitch! has said that courts should ignore "the letter of the law". Well, that's what law is. By definition it is something written down or otherwise recorded. Once you ignore the letter of the law, you ignore the law. At that point, he has elevated the power of the courts above the legislature completely. The legislature merely writes law. If the courts can then change the law, there is no serious role for the legislature, particularly as a counter to the courts.
In response, I asked the obvious:
Why have the other branches then? Just have the courts run everything. Justly, of course.
Now we go to your ridiculous and dishonest loaded question.
Why have courts if you do not demand that they do justice?
My reply:
Sounds like you already know some reasons why. My point is that a court with unchecked power is as just as a legislature or a head of state with unchecked power - which is not at all. These checks on the power of courts are to prevent injustice.
I do the important thing that one does when answering a loaded question. I point out the flawed assumption and why it is flawed. Here, I do not support an unjust court and I pointed out how checks on the power of courts further the cause of justice. Thus, the question in addition to its other unsavory characteristics is irrelevant to my point.
That's because you got hoisted on your own petard.
Once again, your question was not worth answering, but you had to forge on with an annoying and erroneous tu quoque fallacy. You have yet to show why my question was supposedly loaded. It would have at least given me an opportunity to explain the error in your reasoning, should you have tried. But this is the best you mustered:
Which, of course, reveals your assumption quite clearly, hence your selective quoting, as the loaded nature of your question becomes unavoidably apparent with their inclusion.
You are asserting that because glitch! stated a duty of the courts to look for Justice, due to the failings of one branch (as explicitly stated, the legislature), a presumption on glitch!'s position as it were, that the others will be eliminated in favor of the courts.
There's nothing to rebut there since that wasn't even a coherent statement much less a controversial or unjustified assumption of the question I asked. Oh well.
That's when the verbal diarrhea started. You can insist with multiple paragraphs all sorts of false things, but those remain false. Similarly, writing more about dumb ideas and claims doesn't make those any smarter.
Sorry, your characterization of the situation is falsely premised, as you are asserting two broken components, rather than what is the actual situation, which is having one force to counter another force. See above, where I point out your misapprehension. There is a reason why brakes do exist, and some vehicles even have steering control mechanisms to prevent slides and wipe-outs. So actually, even your analogy is flawed, since it is not quite as true as you think.
You're not even wrong here. You're not talking about my point at all. It doesn't matter if there are automated systems involved. My point is