backtop


Print 55 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Mar 14 at 7:14 AM

Tesla will have to stop selling its cars directly in the state starting April 1

Tesla Motors called New Jersey out yesterday for introducing a new rule that would block the automaker's ability to sell electric vehicles directly to customers, but it didn't seem to do much good as the state went ahead and voted in favor of it. 
 
According to CNBC, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission voted in favor of the ban of direct auto sales in the state on Tuesday. This means that Tesla must stop selling its electric vehicles directly to customers in the state beginning on April 1, 2014. 
 
Tesla already operates two stores in New Jersey, and had plans to open more before this new rule. It's possible that Tesla could use them as showrooms now, where customers can look at the Model S, but must go buy them from dealerships or online. 
 
New Jersey is now the third state to ban Tesla's direct sales model. Arizona and Texas were the first two states to give Tesla the boot. 


Tesla CEO Elon Musk

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s administration proposed the new rule earlier this week, which requires a person to have a franchise agreement with an auto manufacturer in order to be granted a license to sell. 

Following the announcement of that rule, Tesla went to its website to make its opposition known. 

"Unfortunately, Monday we received news that Governor Christie’s administration has gone back on its word to delay a proposed anti-Tesla regulation so that the matter could be handled through a fair process in the Legislature," said Tesla in a statement. "The Administration has decided to go outside the legislative process by expediting a rule proposal that would completely change the law in New Jersey. This new rule, if adopted, would curtail Tesla’s sales operations and jeopardize our existing retail licenses in the state."

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said in the past that he'd be willing to take the auto dealership battle to a federal level if needed. 

Source: CNBC



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Yet Again
By Reclaimer77 on 3/13/2014 3:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
See what I mean?

Whenever an issue comes up, you automatically look for a reason to justify Government involvement, more regulations, etc etc.

You even use the SAME nanny state absurd arguments Liberals make, no surprise, you are one.

Someone using an RC plane to "spy on my family"? Really? Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the only ones doing that ARE in our Government! The chances of a regular citizen doing this to "my family" is so stupidly low it's not even worth thinking about.

The chances this Government, which you think is interested in protecting my rights, spied on me and my family is 100%!!! Get a clue.

You know what, I honestly don't think you realize what a hopeless Liberal you are. Please do yourself a favor and take a political Litmus test, and be honest. Unlike how you're being now.


RE: Yet Again
By Mint on 3/14/2014 7:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The chances of a regular citizen doing this to "my family" is so stupidly low it's not even worth thinking about.
Typical Reclaimer, cherry-picking four words out of my post. Spying is one of many issues, but I'll bite.

I'm not talking about regular law abiding citizens, genius. It only takes a fringe 0.1% of people to be a serious problem. It could be a perv looking to catch your wife or daughter naked through a window (revenge porn and voyeurism is already a problem), an angry parent looking for revenge against your bully child, kids looking for gossip material, a thief trying to observe a credit card or PIN code, or a million other things. Are you so naive as to think there is zero malice among the populace?

As I've already mentioned, this isn't about new nannying. It's about assigning liability so that existing laws can be enforced. You can't just sit by and let anonymous automation circumvent the justice system. Law enforcement cannot work without the ability to track drones to an operator.

Imagine if cars were unregulated, and you lost an arm when hit by an unmarked and unmanned automated delivery truck. Who are you going to sue?


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki