The SMART CAR OF AMERICA community is a social utility that connects you with fellow smart enthusiasts.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Cry babies.... MB would not sell them cars so they could gray market them in the USA, so they sue MB. Sob! Have you seen what ZAPs dealers are charging for the gray market 450s?
MB retools cars, finds a partner with more resources (Penske) and outsells ZAP.
It is evident to me that the whole article was produced by ZAP or it was produced for ZAP's benefit. All-in-all, a pretty one-sided statment of the case.
It's "MarketWire" - meaning it's a press release off a wire service, and should not be confused with actual reporting.
Unless Zap had an exclusive deal to sell smarts, they really don't have any leg to stand on. It sucks, since they're stuck with older cars that'll cost twice what the 451s will, but that's business in the grey market. Yeah, it sucks, but that's business.
PAG could find themselves in the same boat after their contact (assuming a contract, yes) with MB expires.
Oh man I hope and pray this does not effect SMARTS from being released in the US. I hope if PAG wins that they counter sue ZAP and make then go out of buisness.
Oh man I hope and pray this does not effect SMARTS from being released in the US. I hope if PAG wins that they counter sue ZAP and make then go out of buisness.
No chance of ZAP delaying the planned release of smarts by MB/Penske.
ZAP has been pumping its stock for years now with promises that have yet to be delivered on. But they did get a few go-cart delivery vehicles to the local UPS. The look like electric Cushmans.
At least they did let me drive a smart from Santa Rosa to NYC last year. Now that was a blast. But a $30,000 smart was not in my future.
Agree with spdickey - no way the smart launch is going to stop. Zap doesn't have that kind of money, and there's no way they're going to get their "dealership" (if it ever was one) back.
Actually, a successful smart launch helps them - they're probably gunning to settle out-of-court anyway (which is why they want to US jurisdiction), and a successful launch means more money in the kitty.
Anywhere other than the rich fantasy world inhabited by ZAP's CEO, this lawsuit has zero chance of success.
What I had not realized is that ZAP are also suing G&K Conversions as part of this absurdity, and that G&K (good for them) have counter-sued.
This is from ZAP's latest SEC filing:
Quote:
ZAP v. Daimler Chrysler AG, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC342211. On October 28, 2005, ZAP filed a complaint against Daimler Chrysler Corporation and others in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The complaint includes claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, trade libel, defamation, breach of contract - agreement to negotiate in good faith, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition. The complaint alleges that Daimler Chrysler has engaged in a series of anti-competitive tactics aimed at defaming ZAP and disrupting its third-party business relationships. As a result of the allegations, the complaint requests damages in excess of $500 million and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. Daimler Chrysler has successfully filed a motion to quash that complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the court’s ruling on that matter is in the process of being appealed. Two of the other defendants in the action, G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. and The Defiance LLC, have filed a cross-complaint against ZAP in the Los Angeles Superior Court for, among other things, violations of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, statutory and common law unfair competition, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. ZAP has responded to the cross-complaint and denied engaging in any wrongful actions.
Today
Linear Mode
