There are also federal statutes which protect consumers in the context of inter-state transactions, right? The point being that the state of N. Carolina isn't the only legal protection for resident consumers.
True. However, I think this is primarily North Carolina protecting North Carolina's interests, not primarily North Carolina protecting consumers. No state wants to lose out on $100,000 car sales.
I suppose I misunderstood you. I was referring to prospect of taxation on an out-of-state sell by an out-of-state seller.
Yet if you're an NC Congressperson who exactly is the type that can literally raise the most hell with you? These people, the ones with the money.
Fern
Nope, I was detailing the reasons Tesla would not want to open dealerships in North Carolina as long as they are selling all they can make without them. Tesla will incur unique (to its business model) costs; no company wants to do that if there is no concurrent benefit. That's just good business. The dealers already have these expenses and generally cannot sell their product without them; ain't many people gonna buy the new Nova without being able to test drive it and having someone in whose face the finger of accusation can be strenuously waved if it turns out to be a lemon. And the third point of view is the state's - by allowing such high-ticket items to be sold without a dealer network, it loses both direct and indirect tax revenue as well as jobs.
You make a good point about the power of those able to buy a $100,000 electric car, but I don't think any of them are complaining. It's possible they might be complaining in the future, but it seems like Tesla makes a pretty darned good automobile. And as Wolfe points out, these people can be directed to federal protections.
EDIT: Regarding serving summons, as I understand it Tesla does maintain a showroom in North Carolina. As an agent of Tesla, they could be served there. Professionals practicing in North Carolina have to maintain cubie offices for much the same reason.
Lol. So there might be a loophole that tesla was exploiting but you aren't aware of it but you are sure as shit and know that car manufactures couldn't use that same loophole?
Keep trying.
LOL A loophole is an unintended way around legislation. Generally speaking, legislators seek to close loopholes, not make sure they are equally available to all. Whether or not other automobile manufacturers COULD use the same loophole is immaterial; North Carolina's problem is that Tesla IS using the loophole. The prospect that other automobile manufacturers might possibly use the same loophole just makes it worse from the state's point of view.