> Tesla can't call force majeure on a contract it isn't party to

Yet Scandinavian workers seem to be able to join in on disputes they aren't party to.

> Yet Scandinavian workers seem to be able to join in on disputes they aren't party to

Yes, there is a difference between association and a legal contract. (As well as not doing something versus forcing someone to.)

The Swedish Transport Agency is required by law to provide plates. If it cannot fulfil its duties because of a force majeur event then it would be expected to explore alternatives like allowing plates to be picked up at the factory, which is not forbidden by law. It might be forbidden by the contract with PostNord, but PostNord is undergoing a force majeure so it cannot object to it.

> If the Swedish government wanted to break the strike, it can--trivially. There is simply zero political will to do so.

That won't be breaking the strike if plates are allowed to be picked up. If the government does not want to follow Swedish law and their duties, then the courts should force it to do so.

> If it cannot fulfil its duties because of a force majeur event then it would be expected to explore alternatives

I don’t know Swedish law. But this certainly isn’t the case in America.

The Swedish Transport Agency has already done their job. The plates are in transit.

Yes, Tesla can do exactly that. It's a standard clause in Nordic contracts. They're not liable if they have had even remotely competent council do their contracts.

My Visa card has a clause that the bank isn't liable if it stops working due to industrial action.

> a standard clause in Nordic contracts

What contract is Tesla party to that they would invoke this on? OP suggested Transport Agency invoking force majeure, which makes sense.

> has a clause that the bank isn't liable if it stops working due to industrial action

Who is suggesting liability for Tesla?