Cypress
Active Member
Or they raised the price because demand was way higher than supply, and tried to blame GM.
GM and Tesla approaching 200,000 units
Or they raised the price because demand was way higher than supply, and tried to blame GM.
Robb Stark
New Member
I guess I failed to make my point.
The point I was trying to make is that a contract should benefit both parties, or else they should never have made it in the first place. If GM finds that the contract no longer serves its purpose, then it should move to end the contract, or re-negotiate the terms.
Contracts between more-or-less equal partners generally include the terms for ending the contract, and generally ending it doesn't have to be mutually agreed to. That's not at all the same as "non-enforceable". What that is, is both parties to a contract being sensible and realizing that situations change, and that at some time in the future, the contract may no longer serve their purposes. Generally speaking -- that is, what is typically written into contracts of this type -- is that a party wanting to end a contract would have to notify the other party, and then the contract would end at some period of time (perhaps a few months or a year) after the notification. It wouldn't end instantly, and the party wanting to end the contract may have to pay a penalty to the other party to bring the contract to an end.
Any re-negotiation of the contract would of course have to be mutually agreed upon by both parties to the contract.
Frack! I'm starting to sound like a lawyer or -- worse -- that I want to be one!
-
In other words in the future, if circumstances were completely different, then GM and PSA may want different things.
No kidding.
Things don't change dramatically at GM in short order. They have 10 year product cycles.
You don't leave a major market and agree not to comeback in order to come back soon.
In the far distant future when both GM and PSA have completely different products they may both decide to become global companies. GM entering Europe and PSA entering North America. But that is not what is covered in the current sales agreement.
And a $37.5k Bolt with 238 miles of range is not a transformative product.
WadeTyhon
Well-Known Member
I also think Barra might like the US to adopt a more CARB like ZEV mandate/incentive at the national level.
Especially if they plan to increase EV production as much as they’ve said. Lots of potential money to be made selling credits since they’re one of a few brands that actually sells EVs nationwide.
And with their push towards EVs over hybrids, they’re possibly better prepared to meet CARB requirements than CAFE. Mary Barra made a statement recently pointing out that CAFE requirements do not provide enough incentive for AV/EV sales.
I know less about CAFE than CARB though so I can’t say for sure if what she says is all that true. Gonna try to look into it further sometime this month.
Feed The Trees
Active Member
Of course she is, but extension or not so long as there is a cap on the number of credits collected then this will always be GMs issue, they're 150k-200k ahead of other big makers yet to seriously jump in. At some point GM will have to stop where the others keep going. Only way around that is either no number counted just a date (which causes MASSIVE sale runups the makers can't fulfill and then have serious lack of sales after) or just end them abruptly.
WadeTyhon
Well-Known Member
EXCELLENT month for Tesla. And good month for GM as well.
March Tesla Sales: 10,020
March GM Sales: 3,556 ( + maybe another 50 CT6 sales max)
GM sales through March: 176,346
Tesla sales through March: 179,420
Tesla takes the crown for all time EV sales in the US!
And Tesla is down to about 21,000 sales before it hits 200,000! Still on track to hit it in Q2 unless they announce a plan soon to begin deliveries to Europe.
GM is down to about 24,000 sales until they hit 200,000. They are on track to hit it in Q3 or early Q4.
