I assume these are civil actions, not criminal. Lawsuits, not state or federal authorities filing criminal charges.āLegalā and āillegalā can be nebulous. Iām sure you can see contemporary examples in other areas. Just who do you think is going to āgo after the criminalsā in Dearborn? Will a posse of Texas rangers burst into the next Ford board meeting and drag all board members back to Texas to be tried for their crimes? (Donāt take that absurd hypothetical seriously, please).
A few dealers may grumble, but nobodyās going to waste money trying to prosecute Ford Motor Company here. Fundamentally, this is no different than a dealer being allowed to sell a Ford GT, or a Shelby Mustang..
Thatās my point. Who will file the suit?I assume these are civil actions, not criminal. Lawsuits, not state or federal authorities filing criminal charges.
That's detailed in that article... some individual dealers, and at least one state dealer's association.Thatās my point. Who will file the suit?
Well, yes, not directly, but that doesn't mean they have no control. Gas prices are quick to adjust when the price of crude goes up, but slow to come down when it falls. The oil companies directly influence prices by controlling refinery capacity. There's no arguing that it makes sense for them to reduce capacity when demand is low, as it was during the pandemic, but it's also true that they benefit greatly when demand increases and the supply is not accordingly increased. Welcome to the world of supply and demand.That isn't how it works. They don't set the price. The commodities market does, based on a myriad of forward-looking supply-demand factors.
Iām not versed in this area, but I still donāt see what the issue is? There was no coercion. Ford has other vehicles, dealers have to qualify to sell, or opt in to sell.That's detailed in that article... some individual dealers, and at least one state dealer's association.
These legal actions began when the Arkansas Automobile Dealers Association filed a formal complaint against FoMoCo with the stateās motor vehicle commission back in October, and continued after 27 Ford dealers in Illinois also protested the decision with that stateās motor vehicle review board late last week. In New York, four dealers filed a lawsuit against the automaker last week, marking the first legal action taken against the Model e Certification program.
The "quick to adjust up but not down" is a common myth. In fact it's kinda been the opposite the last 2 years (see the chart), although overall it tends to average out about the same both ways.Well, yes, not directly, but that doesn't mean they have no control. Gas prices are quick to adjust when the price of crude goes up, but slow to come down when it falls. The oil companies directly influence prices by controlling refinery capacity. There's no arguing that it makes sense for them to reduce capacity when demand is low, as it was during the pandemic, but it's also true that they benefit greatly when demand increases and the supply is not accordingly increased. Welcome to the world of supply and demand.
The issue is Ford cutting them off from EV allocations if they don't comply with these expensive requirements (like the DCFC charger), that could be seen as excessive and not actually necessary to sell/service vehicles. Restricting vehicle allocations to dealers is damaging to those dealers.Iām not versed in this area, but I still donāt see what the issue is? There was no coercion. Ford has other vehicles, dealers have to qualify to sell, or opt in to sell.