GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,552]

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

disruption

Incredibly we are in agreement, coming to a theater near you!

         "GREEN ENERY DISRUPTION"

5 rotten tomatoes!!!!!

[ronwagn + 6,290]

21 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Unless the Chinese have raided GM engineering tech who cares. Geez GM lol that hurts just thinking about them...but I do have a affinity for there big blocks.

I usually think of Westport, but lots of companies around the world have high tech engines including CNG or LNG. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

@kshithij Sharma The Tesla breakthrough with LFP batteries in cold weather has to do with the thermal management system.

"We’ve already seen the new Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries in the Tesla Model 3 RWD performing at the same level, if not better than the former NCA batteries. Although considered inferior in terms of energy density, they proved to be on the same level in terms of performance, especially in cold weather. In a previous test at low temperatures, a Tesla Model 3 with an LFP battery showed an impressive cold-weather range, especially considering it only has a 60 kWh battery.

The same car got into the hands of the famous Norwegian YouTuber Bjorn Nyland, who decided to put the car through his 1,000 km challenge. The car is a Made in China (MIC) model, like many others that are sold in Europe. One thing that sets apart the LFP chemistry is Tesla’s recommendation to fully charge the battery on a regular basis. This provides an extra range compared to the NCA battery that is not recommended to be charged to 100% unless really necessary.

Bjorn was impressed with Tesla Model 3 RWD’s performance, especially as the challenge was carried out at 2-4 degrees Celsius (around 35-40 degrees Fahrenheit). The trip was completed in 10 hours and five minutes, which is close to what the previous Model 3 SR+ with NCA battery achieved at much higher temperatures. For reference, the MIC Model 3 with an NCA battery completed the test in 9 hours and 55 minutes at 13-21 degrees Celsius (55-70 Fahrenheit). The same model, but this time one built in Fremont, needed 10 hours at 22-27 degrees Celsius (72-81 F) for the same trip.

There’s another big difference between those runs, though, and this could be of utmost importance for those who fancy buying a base-version Model 3. The LFP version of the car needed only five fast-charging stops, compared to six in the previous two tests. Bjorn Nyland notes the car has an outstanding thermal management system that helps with squeezing the last drop of energy even in cold temperatures." https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-model-3-with-lfp-battery-aces-the-1000-km-challenge-proves-a-real-cruiser-180744.html

Edited February 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,217]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Nearly all US locomotives are propelled by diesel-electric drives, which emit 35 million tonnes of CO₂ and produce air pollution causing about 1,000 premature deaths annually, accounting for approximately US$6.5 billion in annual health damage costs. Improved battery technology plus access to cheap renewable electricity open the possibility of battery-electric rail. Here we show that a 241-km range can be achieved using a single standard boxcar equipped with a 14-MWh battery and inverter, while consuming half the energy consumed by diesel trains. At near-future battery prices, battery-electric trains can achieve parity with diesel-electric trains if environmental costs are included or if rail companies can access wholesale electricity prices and achieve 40% use of fast-charging infrastructure. Accounting for reduced criteria air pollutants and CO₂ emissions, switching to battery-electric propulsion would save the US freight rail sector US$94 billion over 20 years.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00915-5

Read that liberal nature rag, and if yer worried about 35 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide, get off yer old butt and start replanting the forrests. If the railroads keep using diesel there is a damn fine reason behind it. Redundancy and proven power, and battery tech isn't mature enough for the Railroads to make that heavy of an investment. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

5 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Read that liberal nature rag, and if yer worried about 35 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide, get off yer old butt and start replanting the forrests. If the railroads keep using diesel there is a damn fine reason behind it. Redundancy and proven power, and battery tech isn't mature enough for the Railroads to make that heavy of an investment. 

Union Pacific Railroad to Assemble World's Largest Carrier-Owned Battery-Electric Locomotive Fleet

OMAHA, NEB., JANUARY 28, 2022

Union Pacific Railroad (NYSE: UNP) today announced plans to purchase 20 battery-electric locomotives for testing in yard operations. The combined purchases and upgrades to yard infrastructure are expected to exceed $100 million, representing the largest investment in battery-electric technology by a U.S. Class I railroad. The locomotives will be acquired from Progress Rail, a Caterpillar company, and Wabtec Corporation (NYSE:WAB), two companies at the forefront of locomotive innovation, and will be the world’s largest carrier-owned battery-electric locomotive fleet in freight service.

“We’re committed to actions that reduce Union Pacific’s environmental footprint as we work toward our ultimate goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050,” said Lance Fritz, Chairman, President and CEO of Union Pacific. “These investments will contribute to further developing this important technology and providing industry-wide benefits.”

Union Pacific anticipates the first units will arrive on site in late 2023 with complete delivery by late 2024. The locomotives will be used in rail yards in California and Nebraska, where they will be tested for performance in cold and warm weather, helping identify the locomotives’ capabilities and challenges for broader deployment.

Battery-electric locomotives do not use fuel and emit zero emissions. For every 10 battery-electric locomotives used, approximately 4,000 tons of carbon will be eliminated annually, the equivalent of removing 800 cars from the highway. By working with the locomotive manufacturers in this test phase, Union Pacific hopes to advance battery-electric technology development and evaluate its potential deployment in long-haul service.

Union Pacific published its first comprehensive Climate Action Plan in December 2021, outlining its efforts to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within its operations. As part of that commitment, Union Pacific will reduce absolute Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions 26% by 2030 and achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. https://www.up.com/media/releases/battery-electric-locomotive-nr-220128.htm

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,552]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Ford’s CEO just made a convincing case to break his company up and go full EV

 

During Thursday’s earnings call, chief executive Jim Farley inadvertently put forward a forensic case for why his internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles could be spun off into a listed company separate from its activities in zero-emission battery electric vehicle (BEVs) to unlock greater value for shareholders.

When pressed whether the legacy ICE operations should be carved out to quarantine the growing electric connected car business from potential stranded assets, Farley told investors not to worry: He’s already running the two as if they were. https://fortune.com/2022/02/04/ford-earnings-electric-vehicles-spin-off-jim-farley/

Those ICE vehicles are a problem for their stock price.

Now that is rather bold. It has been ten plus yrs since I have dabbled in the auto market. I can only see lawsuits that go far beyond Ford's scope of influence.

Time will tell..I really do not even know the scope of his family's remaining control. 

 

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Now that is rather bold. It has been ten plus yrs since I have dabbled in the auto market. I can only see lawsuits that go far beyond Ford's scope of influence.

Time will tell..I really do not even know the scope of his family's remaining control. 

 

 

Lawsuit for what? I don't think Farley's family has a significant stock position, he's just the newest CEO.

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,217]

15 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Battery-electric locomotives do not use fuel and emit zero emissions. For every 10 battery-electric locomotives used, approximately 4,000 tons of carbon will be eliminated annually, the equivalent of removing 800 cars from the highway. By working with the locomotive manufacturers in this test phase, Union Pacific hopes to advance battery-electric technology development and evaluate its potential deployment in long-haul service.

Just get off yer butt and plant some trees there in California where the fires ravaged. If you're that worried about the atmosphere get off this forum and do something about it. The above paragraph says test phase, and HOPES to advance battery-electric tech and then evaluate. Many years, probably 15 will you see phasing out diesel electric. Solid State batteries seem to be improving better than LION, and much safer. It will be several more years of testing but doubtful LION will be the battery of the future. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

57 minutes ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Just get off yer butt and plant some trees there in California where the fires ravaged. If you're that worried about the atmosphere get off this forum and do something about it. The above paragraph says test phase, and HOPES to advance battery-electric tech and then evaluate. Many years, probably 15 will you see phasing out diesel electric. Solid State batteries seem to be improving better than LION, and much safer. It will be several more years of testing but doubtful LION will be the battery of the future. 

Yes, we are just at the beginning of the transition and it will take decades. I've never said otherwise. Glad to see you agree that diesel will be phased out.

New battery technologies will continue to displace old ones however I think we will see market segmentation as different battery technologies will be best suited for different applications. At the moment LFP is advancing at incredible speed, is extremely safe and is actually in production. Sodium-ion is hot on its heels. But neither are suitable for the highest end applications requiring high energy density which is where solid state looks to be the better albeit expensive fit.

Edited February 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Its 10BCF, not 2.5BCF of LNG equivalent as I already posted up thread... You are 5 years out of date.  Still a fart in a windstorm compared to what Europe/Asia need.  One would require, ~3000 of the newest largest LNG tankers + facilities for them, to offset what Russia provides... Assuming the USA even has enough NG. 

Have the stats on that?  I showed my data - you have data showing the US is exporting 10 bcf a day of LNG to europe on average now?  Genuinely curious.  It might be correct at the moment.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

2 hours ago, ronwagn said:

https://www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/regions_of_interest/Eastern_Mediterranean/eastern-mediterranean.pdf I am an optimist. 

Sure it could happen.  Maybe even will happen, but it hasn’t happened yet 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

Have the stats on that?  I showed my data - you have data showing the US is exporting 10 bcf a day of LNG to europe on average now?  Genuinely curious.  It might be correct at the moment.

According to Reuters it was 6 bcf a day in Dec.

About half of the record U.S. LNG volumes shipped last month went to Europe,

Gas flowing to U.S. LNG export plants in December hit a record 12.2 billion cubic feet per day, about the maximum processing capacity.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/gas-gap-europe-drives-us-lng-exports-record-high-2022-01-06/

Edited February 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,552]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Lawsuit for what? I don't think Farley's family has a significant stock position, he's just the newest CEO.

Jay I watch you blog with shear fascination and humor. Farley is a paid extension of the Ford family...there are no loose cannons at the top..

Hence my reference to the family's remaining stake in Ford

Lawsuits? Well there are about 4000 dealers, each with dealer/factory agreements. They can be as complex as the US constitution. Non compete clause would be a bit basic...lmao good luck out there.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

54 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Jay I watch you blog with shear fascination and humor. Farley is a paid extension of the Ford family...there are no loose cannons at the top..

Hence my reference to the family's remaining stake in Ford

Lawsuits? Well there are about 4000 dealers, each with dealer/factory agreements. They can be as complex as the US constitution. Non compete clause would be a bit basic...lmao good luck out there.

Non-compete?? You are the funny one. Not long ago Ford owned a bunch of other car companies from Mazda to Volvo, each with its own distinct dealer network yet there were no lawsuits for non-compete. Try again.

They could even go to the direct sales model by simply issuing 50.1% of the new EV stock to the market. Ford owns 12% of Rivian yet there are no non-compete lawsuits. 

Edited February 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Eight-hour lithium-ion project wins in California long-duration energy storage procurement

An eight-hour duration lithium-ion battery project has become the first long-duration energy storage resource selected by a group of non-profit energy suppliers in California. 

California Community Power (CC Power), a Joint Powers Agency representing a group of 10 Community Choice Aggregator (CCA) energy suppliers in the state, made the announcement yesterday.

Seven member organisations which are hosting the procurement effort together, voted to enter into an energy storage service agreement for the project with its developer, REV Renewables, a subsidiary of LS Power. 

The project, called Tumbleweed, will have 69MW output and 552MWh capacity and is expected to come online in 2026. It will be connected to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) grid.

This marks the “first major procurement” for long-duration storage by CC Power, a representative of Silicon Valley Clean Energy, one of the CCA groups, told Energy-Storage.news. 

“Long-duration energy storage is a vital resource, needed to amplify the value of renewable power, and accelerate California’s shift to a clean, reliable and affordable grid,” Silicon Valley Clean Energy CEO Girish Balachandrian said.

It comes as a result of the regulatory California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) ruling that energy suppliers in the state must bring online 11.5GW of energy resources — nearly all of which have to be low or zero-emissions — within five years to ensure what it defined as ‘Mid-Term Reliability’.

The result of the CCAs’ solicitation is interesting in that the majority of lithium-ion BESS connected to the grid around the world generally goes up to a maximum four-hour duration. Expectations have been that other technologies such as flow batteries or thermal energy storage might be competitive for applications requiring eight hours or longer. However, it appears the sheer scale of the lithium-ion battery industry and its rapid cost reduction curve have kept the technology ahead of other options in this case. 

 https://www.energy-storage.news/eight-hour-lithium-ion-project-wins-in-california-long-duration-energy-storage-procurement/

Edited February 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

9 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

According to Reuters it was 6 bcf a day in Dec.

About half of the record U.S. LNG volumes shipped last month went to Europe,

Gas flowing to U.S. LNG export plants in December hit a record 12.2 billion cubic feet per day, about the maximum processing capacity.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/gas-gap-europe-drives-us-lng-exports-record-high-2022-01-06/

That’s in line with my assessment that it’s surely higher than 2.5 bcf a day in the current crisis, but not even vaguely 10 bcf a day, and even less when averaged over the year. 

[Eric Gagen + 713]

12 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Now that is rather bold. It has been ten plus yrs since I have dabbled in the auto market. I can only see lawsuits that go far beyond Ford's scope of influence.

Time will tell..I really do not even know the scope of his family's remaining control. 

 

 

I'm not sure what the potential problem is here - I don't know exactly to what degree the Ford family controls the Ford company, but if they split the company, so what? the Ford family still owns their portion of each of the new companies, so unless they expect the companies to do worse separately than they did together they shouldn't have any complaints.  

[Eric Gagen + 713]

13 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

Read that liberal nature rag, and if yer worried about 35 million tonnes of Carbon Dioxide, get off yer old butt and start replanting the forrests. If the railroads keep using diesel there is a damn fine reason behind it. Redundancy and proven power, and battery tech isn't mature enough for the Railroads to make that heavy of an investment. 

 

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Union Pacific Railroad to Assemble World's Largest Carrier-Owned Battery-Electric Locomotive Fleet

OMAHA, NEB., JANUARY 28, 2022

Union Pacific Railroad (NYSE: UNP) today announced plans to purchase 20 battery-electric locomotives for testing in yard operations. The combined purchases and upgrades to yard infrastructure are expected to exceed $100 million, representing the largest investment in battery-electric technology by a U.S. Class I railroad. The locomotives will be acquired from Progress Rail, a Caterpillar company, and Wabtec Corporation (NYSE:WAB), two companies at the forefront of locomotive innovation, and will be the world’s largest carrier-owned battery-electric locomotive fleet in freight service.

“We’re committed to actions that reduce Union Pacific’s environmental footprint as we work toward our ultimate goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050,” said Lance Fritz, Chairman, President and CEO of Union Pacific. “These investments will contribute to further developing this important technology and providing industry-wide benefits.”

Union Pacific anticipates the first units will arrive on site in late 2023 with complete delivery by late 2024. The locomotives will be used in rail yards in California and Nebraska, where they will be tested for performance in cold and warm weather, helping identify the locomotives’ capabilities and challenges for broader deployment.

Battery-electric locomotives do not use fuel and emit zero emissions. For every 10 battery-electric locomotives used, approximately 4,000 tons of carbon will be eliminated annually, the equivalent of removing 800 cars from the highway. By working with the locomotive manufacturers in this test phase, Union Pacific hopes to advance battery-electric technology development and evaluate its potential deployment in long-haul service.

Union Pacific published its first comprehensive Climate Action Plan in December 2021, outlining its efforts to significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within its operations. As part of that commitment, Union Pacific will reduce absolute Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions 26% by 2030 and achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. https://www.up.com/media/releases/battery-electric-locomotive-nr-220128.htm

I have it on good authority that Caterpillar (parent company of Progress rail) has no plans to design any new diesel locomotives, and made their final decision a little over 2 years ago (pre-covid). They will continue to produce existing designs to support 'legacy' customers for a few more years, but they don't see a long term future in diesel electrics.  All the major railroads in the US, and elsewhere are in the process of figuring out exactly how they will go completely electric, and they would rather focus their resources on that growing market.  Outside of a few remote areas the expectation is that there won't be any diesel locomotives still in service  in North or South America within 20 years.  

This is in  line with their development of electric mine haul trucks as well.  

Wabtec is obviously in general agreement, since their production is headed in the same direction (even though I don't have any insight into what they are doing as a company)

Edited February 5, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,552]

16 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Non-compete?? You are the funny one. Not long ago Ford owned a bunch of other car companies from Mazda to Volvo, each with its own distinct dealer network yet there were no lawsuits for non-compete. Try again.

They could even go to the direct sales model by simply issuing 50.1% of the new EV stock to the market. Ford owns 12% of Rivian yet there are no non-compete lawsuits. 

Jay Ford bought companies, you might have missed the lack of Volvos sitting on Ford dealerships. 

I find it hard to believe you have no or little grasp of franchise laws. But then again you do have a blinders on approach towards Green energy.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Jay Ford bought companies, you might have missed the lack of Volvos sitting on Ford dealerships. 

I find it hard to believe you have no or little grasp of franchise laws. But then again you do have a blinders on approach towards Green energy.

There is no legal difference between buying and selling companies and spinning one off. As I said, Ford owned and ran companies with separate and distinct dealership networks yet there were no non-compete lawsuits. The lack of Volvos at Ford dealerships is the entire point! From this we know that Ford's franchise contracts do not prevent it from owing and operating competing companies through a competing dealership network so long as they use different trademarks from those included in the franchise agreement. What about this don't you understand?

"Most franchise agreements contain “non-compete” provisions which prohibit the franchisee from operating a business that competes with the franchised business. "

What you fail to comprehend is that the standard non-compete provision is a one way prohibition against the franchisee (dealership) not against the franchisor (auto maker).

https://www.franchiselawadvocates.com/non-competition-covenants.html#:~:text=Most franchise agreements contain “non,competes with the franchised business.&text=During the term of the agreement they limit the other,can own or invest in.

 

btw- Geely, current owner of Volvo, just did this with Polestar. It was actually a Volvo mark that they spun off into a separate company. They are then partnering with their Volvo dealers to provide vehicle service for this new company. Ford would likely do similiar.

 

 

 

Edited February 5, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,552]

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

There is no legal difference between buying and selling companies and spinning one off. As I said, Ford owned and ran companies with separate and distinct dealership networks yet there were no non-compete lawsuits. The lack of Volvos at Ford dealerships is the entire point! From this we know that Ford's franchise contracts do not prevent it from owing and operating competing companies through a competing dealership network so long as they use different trademarks from those included in the franchise agreement. What about this don't you understand?

"Most franchise agreements contain “non-compete” provisions which prohibit the franchisee from operating a business that competes with the franchised business. "

What you fail to comprehend is that the standard non-compete provision is a one way prohibition against the franchisee (dealership) not against the franchisor (auto maker).

https://www.franchiselawadvocates.com/non-competition-covenants.html#:~:text=Most franchise agreements contain “non,competes with the franchised business.&text=During the term of the agreement they limit the other,can own or invest in.

 

btw- Geely, current owner of Volvo, just did this with Polestar. It was actually a Volvo mark that they spun off into a separate company. They are then partnering with their Volvo dealers to provide vehicle service for this new company. Ford would likely do similiar.

 

 

 

Here grasshopper just a outline of a automotive dealer agreement. Extremely generic at that. 

What Constitutes the Dealership Agreements?

A dealership agreement typically include

1. Purpose of the agreement
   • Details of the good involved in the transaction
   • The territory of the dealer’s operation
2. Tenure of the Agreement
   • Maybe an indefinite period
   • If a specific time period then, provision and terms of renewability
3. The obligation of the parties, which may include
   • Duties of the distributor to provide a percentage of capital for staff
   • Duties of the dealer to complete the procedure of initiating the dealership within a specific time period.
   • Dealer to not hold back promotion of goods supplied by the distributor
4. The procedure of supply and return of goods
   • Dates of delivery of goods
   • Return of defective goods
5. Promotion and training
   • Regular training to be provided to an employee of the dealers
   • Material for promotions to be provided to the dealer
   • Discounts and deals to be conveyed with brochures to the dealer
6. Invoices and the mode of payment
   • The time period of the invoices
   • Penalties of any to be levied upon late payment or otherwise
   • Payment period- monthly, quarterly or otherwise
7. Any restrictions upon the parties
   • Restrictions upon transactions with any competitors
   • Prices of goods, it can be altered by the dealer while selling goods to the final customer
   • Territorial restrictions
   • Exclusive dealership or not
   • Assignment, delegation by the dealer if allowed
8. Termination of the dealership
   • Notice period
   • Settlement of accounts upon termination
9. What terms shall survive the terminated agreement
10. The scope of appointment of sub-dealers, agent
11. The manner in which notices to be served to the parties and on what address
12. Waiver clause for any future breach of the terms by either party or failure on part of the dealer
13. Details of warranties provided on the goods by the Manufacturing companies.
14. Confidentiality Clause, dealing with business transactions, the technical data, the customer lists, the sales practices, the operational procedures, and practices etc
15. Clause for modification of the agreement, if any allowed
    • Which terms may be amended
    • Which terms may be removed
16. https://enterslice.com/learning/dealership-agreement/amp/

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

On 2/4/2022 at 7:50 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

The post is about locomotives. Though the attributes of LFP batteries in EVs are the same. Real economists understand emerging growth technologies and disruption. At the very least they understand investment functions and right now all the investment is going into EVs, not ICE.

Real economists have taken courses in econometrics....right, Jay?

Edited February 6, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,446]

13 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

 

I have it on good authority that Caterpillar (parent company of Progress rail) has no plans to design any new diesel locomotives, and made their final decision a little over 2 years ago (pre-covid). They will continue to produce existing designs to support 'legacy' customers for a few more years, but they don't see a long term future in diesel electrics.  All the major railroads in the US, and elsewhere are in the process of figuring out exactly how they will go completely electric, and they would rather focus their resources on that growing market.  Outside of a few remote areas the expectation is that there won't be any diesel locomotives still in service  in North or South America within 20 years.  

This is in  line with their development of electric mine haul trucks as well.  

Wabtec is obviously in general agreement, since their production is headed in the same direction (even though I don't have any insight into what they are doing as a company)

All these "what if" prognostications are worthless if they fizzle out in few years, as these ones surely will. It is all based on public panic over misguided climate alarmism. 

The weak science behind the panic will be, and has already been, exposed as worthless, and it will not be long before the political opportunism which has attached itself to climate panic will also fade.

This will all be nothing but a bad dream from which rational people will emerge shortly.

Edited February 6, 2022 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Here grasshopper just a outline of a automotive dealer agreement. Extremely generic at that. 

What Constitutes the Dealership Agreements?

A dealership agreement typically include

1. Purpose of the agreement
   • Details of the good involved in the transaction
   • The territory of the dealer’s operation
2. Tenure of the Agreement
   • Maybe an indefinite period
   • If a specific time period then, provision and terms of renewability
3. The obligation of the parties, which may include
   • Duties of the distributor to provide a percentage of capital for staff
   • Duties of the dealer to complete the procedure of initiating the dealership within a specific time period.
   • Dealer to not hold back promotion of goods supplied by the distributor
4. The procedure of supply and return of goods
   • Dates of delivery of goods
   • Return of defective goods
5. Promotion and training
   • Regular training to be provided to an employee of the dealers
   • Material for promotions to be provided to the dealer
   • Discounts and deals to be conveyed with brochures to the dealer
6. Invoices and the mode of payment
   • The time period of the invoices
   • Penalties of any to be levied upon late payment or otherwise
   • Payment period- monthly, quarterly or otherwise
7. Any restrictions upon the parties
   • Restrictions upon transactions with any competitors
   • Prices of goods, it can be altered by the dealer while selling goods to the final customer
   • Territorial restrictions
   • Exclusive dealership or not
   • Assignment, delegation by the dealer if allowed
8. Termination of the dealership
   • Notice period
   • Settlement of accounts upon termination
9. What terms shall survive the terminated agreement
10. The scope of appointment of sub-dealers, agent
11. The manner in which notices to be served to the parties and on what address
12. Waiver clause for any future breach of the terms by either party or failure on part of the dealer
13. Details of warranties provided on the goods by the Manufacturing companies.
14. Confidentiality Clause, dealing with business transactions, the technical data, the customer lists, the sales practices, the operational procedures, and practices etc
15. Clause for modification of the agreement, if any allowed
    • Which terms may be amended
    • Which terms may be removed
16. https://enterslice.com/learning/dealership-agreement/amp/

So what?  Here is the actual Ford Dealership Agreement: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1019849/000095012402000556/k66280ex10-2_13.txt

Please specify the clause that prohibits Ford from owning and operating a competing car company.

I recommend you stick to the cartoons.

Edited February 6, 2022 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Real economists have taken courses in econometrics....right, Jay?

That is correct. The University of California didn't award me Highest Honors in Economics without my excelling in multiple econometrics courses. 

Edited February 6, 2022 by Jay McKinsey