Civil liability. You cannot sue in state court without personal jurisdiction over the maker, you know, in case they make a car with a fuel tank that explodes everytime you tap the fender or something. However, if they have a physical business footprint in the state, it's fair to sue them there.
It would be the end of auto recalls, and soon after the end of auto safety in general, because the makers would force their cases into whatever singular federal court that they pick and just whittle away the law of product liability one case at a time, sort of like how Republicans file all their challenges to federal immigration laws in Brownsville, Texas. Elon Musk would love that.
E: I see we're just downvoting things we don't understand this morning because we don't like car dealers. That's discouraging. I'm encouraged by a 2021 Supreme Court case, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana that seems to have returned some sanity to personal jurisdiction in product liability cases. Still, a physical presence in the forum state, even if it's by an independent dealership (not a requirement in all states)--which stands in the shoes of the maker due to its equitable and contractual privity--is the lodestar of personal jurisdiction. Without strong long-arm jurisdiction, regular people are further doomed to the recklessness and wilfull disregard by which manufacturers will sell products in order to maximize profit.
Can’t this be solved by updating requirements to allow vehicle sales?
Jurisdiction and service are part of due process, and come from the Constitution.
Yeah, there's probably a way.
You're saying that a customer can't sue companies that don't have a physical presence in their state, but because they sell their product though an unrelated third party I can sue them? I'm not a lawyer but that sounds like bullshit.
The real reason for the continued existence of car dealerships is lobbyist money. The NADA is very politically spendy to maintain their members' legally required middleman status. And it's bullshit. I can buy a laptop directly from Apple. I can buy a bicycle directly from Cannondale. I legally CANNOT buy a truck directly from Ford. I can configure it etc online but the order is then sent to a local dealership for processing and they can add whatever "fuck you because we can" fees they want.
I don’t see any problem with removig car dealers. Just phase out of existence no one will miss them.
What about Rocktober savings, and flailing tube person vendors?
They can diversify into Inflatable flailing squid vendors!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Inflatable flailing squid
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Civil liability. You cannot sue in state court without personal jurisdiction over the maker, you know, in case they make a car with a fuel tank that explodes everytime you tap the fender or something. However, if they have a physical business footprint in the state, it's fair to sue them there.
It would be the end of auto recalls, and soon after the end of auto safety in general, because the makers would force their cases into whatever singular federal court that they pick and just whittle away the law of product liability one case at a time, sort of like how Republicans file all their challenges to federal immigration laws in Brownsville, Texas. Elon Musk would love that.
E: I see we're just downvoting things we don't understand this morning because we don't like car dealers. That's discouraging. I'm encouraged by a 2021 Supreme Court case, Ford Motor Co. v. Montana that seems to have returned some sanity to personal jurisdiction in product liability cases. Still, a physical presence in the forum state, even if it's by an independent dealership (not a requirement in all states)--which stands in the shoes of the maker due to its equitable and contractual privity--is the lodestar of personal jurisdiction. Without strong long-arm jurisdiction, regular people are further doomed to the recklessness and wilfull disregard by which manufacturers will sell products in order to maximize profit.
Dealerships aren't owned by car companies.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privity
Can’t this be solved by updating requirements to allow vehicle sales?
Jurisdiction and service are part of due process, and come from the Constitution.
Yeah, there's probably a way.
You're saying that a customer can't sue companies that don't have a physical presence in their state, but because they sell their product though an unrelated third party I can sue them? I'm not a lawyer but that sounds like bullshit.
The real reason for the continued existence of car dealerships is lobbyist money. The NADA is very politically spendy to maintain their members' legally required middleman status. And it's bullshit. I can buy a laptop directly from Apple. I can buy a bicycle directly from Cannondale. I legally CANNOT buy a truck directly from Ford. I can configure it etc online but the order is then sent to a local dealership for processing and they can add whatever "fuck you because we can" fees they want.