Perez Explains GV's Side of the Lawsuit

[MahindraPlanet]

Register to stop seeing this ad!

Mike Levine interviewed Global Vehicles CEO, John Perez and posted an excellent article explaining the lawsuit from GV's side. Go there now, it is good stuff. Global Vehicles USA Says Mahindra Delayed Truck Certification to Void Contract - PickupTrucks.com News

I can't wait to read the comments on this article.

[Forest]

Perhaps M&M is not so dumd after all. So at the last min of original contract negotiations they put in a 3 year clause stating if they trucks did not meet US Specs the contract was Void, but if they made the 3 year deadline then GV had 15 years of distribution.

So the basis of the case is, as is well documented, M&M delayed the EPA paperwork. Thus just missing the certification by a few days voiding the contract.

GV understood the clause would be used if there was no chance the trucks would meet certification, not as a sneaky way out of the contract, thus the lawsuit from GV, and the memo from M&M stating the relationship was over.

Now it all makes sense.

So the big speculation now is, Will the dealers want to deal with Mahindra directly if they win this thing, or will Mahindra go find a different batch of dealer, or use the Tractor folks.

[howam00]

Its been said a few times. This kind of strategy is nothing new in business but M&M wasn't very good about hiding or we as consumers are so focused in on these trucks were are using a magnifying glass to go over everything where in the general consumer world no one pays this close of attention.

All companies are ruthless and want bottom line profits, I know I analyze about 700 businesses a year. Ford, GM, Honda, Mercedes adn the rest all would cut out any middle man to hold more profits in the end. Its the nature of a capitalist society to earn as much as possible.

[Bugman]

I would assume GV had to put some of the money in escrow , so the dealers who got screwed should get some money back?

[ToxicSludge]

Originally Posted by Bugman

I would assume GV had to put some of the money in escrow , so the dealers who got screwed should get some money back?

I'm wondering if the dealer network that GV signed up under the original contract....are no longer going to be dealers for the trucks should m&m win.With the arrogance level at m&m all pumped up,maybe they think they can set up a better network...........now that GV showed them how to do it,thus keeping even more of the sales loot.

[howam00]

Originally Posted by ToxicSludge

I'm wondering if the dealer network that GV signed up under the original contract....are no longer going to be dealers for the trucks should m&m win.With the arrogance level at m&m all pumped up,maybe they think they can set up a better network...........now that GV showed them how to do it,thus keeping even more of the sales loot.

i think the dealers will still be in place. Case in point my local dealer here in Boise has a new ad campaing that started this week and they list Mahindra as "coming soon" They wouldn't put up the money on this and have it be wrong.

[Forest]

After some thought, IF GV is out, them perhaps that will help keep the cost to us Down.

[Hughlysses]

Wow- sounds like GV should have hired better lawyers.

[ack]

Originally Posted by Forest

After some thought, IF GV is out, them perhaps that will help keep the cost to us Down.

I don't care if the truck ends up selling for $11,000!

I am NOT gonna buy from a company that acts as underhandedly as Mahindra and Mahindra!

[howam00]

Originally Posted by ack

I don't care if the truck ends up selling for $11,000!

I am NOT gonna buy from a company that acts as underhandedly as Mahindra and Mahindra!

You'd never buy a mass made product again. M&M's main fault is that this ended up public instead of behind closed doors. Companies screw people and other companies over all the time. That is the nature of capitalism, only the winners survive and winning means having the most money/profits. I don't blame them for wanting to cut out the middle man but it is in bad taste and against the nature of the original agreement and I bet that is how the court sees it too.

I think I was the one who brought up the case about Ford and the guy who invented the intermitant wipers. They even made a movie on this. They hosed that guy for a couple of decades before they finally had to pony up and what they did was actually illegal versus just in bad taste like M&M.