News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Tesla California sales beat Chrysler, Volvo, Cadillac, ot... by sliverstorm on Saturday August 24, 2013 @02:42AM (#6267913)
AT one time, showroom/service center combos were a very good thing for consumers. Consumers want to test drive many vehicles before they buy. They want to have a range of options on hand to chose from. After they buy, they want somewhere they can entrust their car to for repairs. In summary, the type of role the dealership fills was and possibly still is an important role in the automotive market.

This is where dealerships came from. Manufacturers, especially when they were smaller, didn't want to deal with establishing such a presence in every town in America, so they left it to private business.

This brings us to the existing franchise laws. I'm told the rationale goes like this; if a manufacturer were to suddenly decide to sell its own vehicles and cut out the middleman, said middleman would be completely and utterly screwed for obvious reasons. The laws, thus, are a form of guarantee for the prospective middleman. He knows his extremely capitol-intensive venture cannot be toppled two years later when the manufacturer decides to sell direct. If such protections were not in place, (so the story goes) entrepreneurs would be hesitant to start a dealership, the absence of which would have been a negative for everybody.

Re:Tesla California sales beat Chrysler, Volvo, Cadillac, ot... by ensignavenger on Saturday August 24, 2013 @12:22PM (#6269031)
Of course, a strong franchise contract with the manufacturer would have fixed this problem just as well (probably better) as legislation. And it would have only applied to parties who agreed to the terms.
Re:Tesla California sales beat Chrysler, Volvo, Cadillac, ot... by sliverstorm on Saturday August 24, 2013 @02:07PM (#6269320)
Sure, there's a bunch of ways to do it. I'm not taking a position on the legislation, merely trying to answer my parent's question.