[Oeva-list] SHOULD we let Tesla off the hook?

Steve's Account stevel at fern.com
Mon Jul 1 13:34:31 PDT 2013


So long as there is some "in state" representative that is involved in
the transaction, I guess I don't have an objection to it.. but that's not
how I read what was on the web page discussing the issue.

The one I read seemed to be saying "allow interstate sales by the
manufacturer, without requiring a presence of "somebody" in each
state.

I guess I don't care if that "somebody" is Tesla or Lithia.. in
either case they would be large companies with multi state
presences.. just one also happens to make cars, in addition to
selling them.

This is little different than what happens now between say
"General Motors" the car company, and "General Motors Credit" the
finance company.

I wouldn't seen anything wrong with having "Tesla Motors" the car
manufactuer, and "Tesla Motors (Oregon)", the sales agent for
Tesla cars in Oregon. Provided that other dealers could get the
same "deals" from Tesla Motors (the car company) should they want
to compete with Tesla Motors (Oregon) on a fair basis.

If, because they were interlocking companies, they had an unfair
advantage.. .then there would be no chance at price competition
amount the dealers.

As it is now, "Dealer Invoice" pricing on ICE's is a joke.. the dealer
doesn't pay that price for the car, it's just a tool to make the
customer think they are getting a good price. That situation would
be even worse in the event of interlocking companies.

I suspect that it's "existing dealers" that would have the biggest
problem with direct competition by the manufacturer.

Steve



More information about the Oeva-list mailing list