What's going on today is that those same consumers who felt comfort in buying from let's say Tesla, because they knew that the price was fixed, everybody across the country was going to pay the same price. How do they feel now? Tesla has reduced the price by 25% of the same car that this customer bought, let's say a year ago.
What's up everyone? This is Cardioshab Guy. You're listening to the Cardioshab Guy podcast, which is my effort to give you access to the most unbiased and transparent insights into the car market. Let's get into today's episode.
Leonard Belavius, founding partner at law firm Belavia and Blat, also known as dealerlaw.com. He is a nationally recognized authority in the fields of automotive and dealership law. In this conversation we discussed the case for and against dealership markups, automotive franchise laws, why they exist and if they'll go away, the most consumer-friendly automotive brands, the top concerns on the minds of dealers, will Tesla ever franchise? Yes, you heard that correctly and much more.
But before we dive into the show, this episode is brought to you by CDK Global. CDK Global has been empowering nearly 15,000 dealers with the tools and technology they need to build deeper relationships with customers. Their team is keenly aware of the state of dealership technology and while many vendors promise seamless experiences between your CRM, DMS, digital retail and fixed ops, most of these bolt-on solutions tend to break workflows and cause more harm than good. That is why CDK has launched a new dealership experience platform. This new integrated software consists of everything you need to operate a dealership officially, while delivering an unparalleled experience to your customers. Basically, everything working together, not separate, one system to run your dealership as opposed to 10. CDK developed it with an outside-in approach listening to dealers every step of the way. You can learn more about CDK's dealership experience platform by visiting CDKGlobal.com. DXP or clicking the link in the show notes below.
This episode is also brought to you by Cars Commerce. The platform is simplified everything about buying and selling cars. I talk a lot on this podcast about how complicated and disconnected our industry can be with so many different moving parts. So as a Cars.com dealer-inspired customer of many years, I was excited to hear Alex Vetter announce his team's vision to simplify dealership technology as Cars Commerce. If you missed it, they've been connecting the most valuable audience from their Cars.com marketplace with innovative technology and media solutions such as dealer-inspired, accurate trade, and their newly formed Cars Commerce media network. So now this platform means you can work with one partner to advertise to consumers you know are in the market, guide them through a seamless customer experience from online to in-store, and quickly build a differentiated reputation in your market. Simple. That's what we need to improve the customer experience and future-proof local retailers. Go to Cars.comers.ink or visit the link in the show notes below to see how you can simplify your business and grow profitability.
In terms of trying to build a practice, I did two things. I would actually literally walk into dealerships and speak to the ask for the owner. Back then it was a little easier. These were really mom and pop dealerships. It was a little easier for me to get in front of the dealer because at least my last name was known in the Metro, New York area. My family had dealerships, so I use that to my advantage. Smart. Well, I mean I didn't have as much else you could do, especially as a young lawyer. I would get in front of the dealer and I would try and encourage them to give me whatever type of work, you know leases, summa complaints, any type of litigation. And little by little, I got a case here and a pickup a case there, but to really pay the rent, what I needed to do was back then what we called per diems. And that means you go to big law firms and say, listen, can I cover deposition or court conference, pay me $100 or $50? And I would do two or three or four of those a day. And by the end of the month, I had enough money to pay the rent. I didn't really have, I didn't have my own house at the time, so my expenses were pretty low. So I was sustaining myself just by doing a lot of running around like crazy.
And then little by little, I would get more dealership work. Again, keep in mind there weren't many lawyers out there that did dealership work. There was one on Long Island, a great lawyer named Len Weber, another one in New Jersey, Marty Margolis, these were all very big names back then. So I was the young upstart at the time and even they would give me some work, overflow work.
So over the course of many years, I got to get a little more name recognition and then I would learn about marketing, direct mail, and I would send newsletters back, that newsletters was the way you market it. I didn't have digital media. So you just bought a lot of stamps and you sent out newsletters, updates and bulletins and little by little you'd get phone calls. And then I started getting bigger cases.
The only advantage I had really was that I knew how to run a dealership. I knew the issues I could relate when you can talk to a client. You're differentiating yourself from the lawyers that they were using at the time, so that worked to my advantage because as a lot of the way in a carjacket, you learn some of the vernacular in the dealership. That gives a client a little more comfort that you know you understand the issues.
I think one of the challenges I always had was when we needed counsel for anything, not necessarily litigation, but just general needing counsel for growth, for this, for that, finding like you said someone that understands the nuances of the business is a lot more difficult than you think. And we've leaned on the state agencies a lot because they have experts in many different areas of the business, but it's definitely, I mean, it makes a lot of sense to specialize in that niche. I can see why that's kind of brought so much value.
I did want to ask you a question. You mentioned there was no customer service index for dealerships in the 80s, 90s, whatever, but what was the perception of the dealership 30, 40 years ago? Was it the same as it is today? Was it worse, better? How do you think about that? And I want to preface that. I'm coming from the point of view of the Internet has democratized a lot of things. It's also made things a lot more transparent. And so things have changed a lot. Consumers have a lot more information. Dealers have a lot more information. So anyways, with all that said, what was the perception of the car dealership back then?
Well, in the early 80s, it was still the plaid jacket, the white paddle leather shoes. Although that wasn't reality. That was the stick that we were confronted with. I mean, the fact is the owners of these dealerships were for the most part male back then. That's changed. But sophisticated business people, they may not be academics necessarily. They weren't all college graduates, but they were very savvy people. I often joked, there should be a course in law school where you have to sit in a retail establishment, whether it's a car dealer, furniture dealer, both dealers, and really learn what goes on in the world.
So that was an invaluable experience just to be dealing with public learning to speak on your feet. That used to joke to me. He said, well, I'm a dealer, you're a lawyer. The only difference between you and me is you have a certificate on the wall because we're selling a product. I'm selling a point of view. So it was kind of his way of saying, don't get too uppity with your blood degree. We all have the same goal and that's to accomplish whatever we set out for that day.
So in court, though, the stigma still existed from the 60s and 70s. I would say in the 80s, things started to change because Ward dealer has wanted to acquire additional dealerships. And one of the criteria was to start looking at the customer satisfaction of the existing dealerships. CSI kind of came into existence in the 80s, but it didn't make representing dealers any easier because there were these preconceived notions that dealers were disreputable, high pressure, and you never really got a fair shake when you were at a dealer. So there was a lot to overcome. I mean, it wasn't truthful. And quite honestly, there are suppositions like that that exist today that aren't truthful, but dealers have to confront them.
Well, do you think it wasn't truthful or do you think that it was truthful just to a certain extent? Like, I always talk about dealers all across the spectrum and that there's many dealers that do things the right way. And there's some that obviously don't just like any industry. So, you know, do you think that that's sort of like the genesis for that or why else would there be that stigma?
Yeah, I had clients that fit into all of those scenarios. Some are very, I consider to be very disreputable. And I didn't like the way they treated castorio clients like that today.
So I certainly don't want to paint the dealer body with the same brush and say, you all get a bad rap or all honorable. 100%.
Yeah. I mean, look, it's like any other, it's like lawyers, doctors, accountants, you know, they're good and bad. They're those that put the client customer first and those that put their profit motive first. So, you know, you know, after representing a client for a period of time, you know, what you're dealing with.
Yeah, I hear lawyers, you know, all the time saying, well, you dealers are unfairly maligned. That's true. I mean, there are dealers that are unfairly maligned, but that doesn't mean there aren't others that deserve the reputation they get. And that's a negative blemish on the good dealers that are really trying to get past that negative stigma. So it's a challenge. And I don't like to be involved in dealers who really push the envelope because they're just making it more difficult on behalf of the dealers that do try and follow up.
The law and good customer satisfaction goals and so on. So it's a tough grind and it's the same in any profession. So it's not unique to automotive retail. But the more ethical business owners, I think ultimately kind of avoid the skirmishes and have less legal costs. They're practiced, you know, preventative business practices where they can avoid you never fully avoid.
You know, I don't say that if you're a successful business person in retail, I mean, necessarily you're going to be confronted with some reclaims business claims kind of like the doctor, right? Show me a doctor that's never lost a patient and I'll show you a doctor that doesn't get the hard cases. So same thing with automotive. If you're in a high volume business and you're trying to make your margins and you want to hire the best people, you know, you got to go through a lot to get to that point and you know, you can't be faith of heart. And so sometimes, you know, you get hit the crossfire because not everybody agrees with the methods that you need to employ to become the best of the best. You got to ruffle people's feathers, whether it's a customer, manufacturer, an employee just comes with the territory.
I put out a teaser on social media for this podcast and it blew up. I think we had over 200 comments and questions, you know, lots of people are very interested. You know, one of the common themes I get asked about a lot is just franchise laws, the history of franchise laws, you know, why they came to be, can you give us, before we dive into it? Before we dive into this discussion, can you give us the background of franchise laws? Like when did they start? Why did they start? How do they still exist? Can you give us that whole story?
Yeah, franchise laws were designed, you know, people say they're to protect dealers. Well, there's so truth to that. However, they're really there to provide a mechanism or methodology to address grievances between dealers and manufacturers. So when you hear a certain constituency say, well, dealers have all these protectionist type statutes, they're really not there to protect dealers. There are some things that are designed to protect dealers against oppressive conduct by the manufacturer because of the uneven bargaining power. But, you know, there were debates, I'm sure some of the comments you just mentioned about, you know, teeing up this discussion and some of the feedback you got as dealers are no good and why do they get all these protections, no other industry gets protections.
Well, here's what's underlies at all and this goes back to the 50s, really, 40s, 50s. There was a federal law that was promulgated in 1956, called the Federal Automobile Dealers Day in Courthack, which was the first federal law. That was designed to try and create a level playing field between auto manufacturers and dealers. So what it really stemmed from was the recognition that in order for, it's really a twofold recognition. One is that dealers in order to open up a dealership need to spend an inordinate sum of money, both for the bricks and mortar, the working capital requirements, inventory requirements. So let's just say, as a general statement, it costs millions of dollars, even back then, to open up a dealership. And that's not untrue of other businesses, but here's the distinction.
And this really brings the summer into the mix, notwithstanding the fact that those that are anti-dealer will deny this, but the reality is that these franchise laws are designed to provide relief to a dealer, but the incidental beneficiary of these franchise laws are consumers.
Now, anti-dealer people will gristle at that notion. However, the fact is that unlike both dealers or automobile dealers or tractor dealers, nobody needs a boat or a snowmobile or a tractor, maybe a tractor to an extent in certain parts of the country, but everyone needs a motor vehicle.
Everyone needs to have the ability to get that motor vehicle repaired in a timely manner, whether it's under warranty or after warranty expires.
每个人都需要及时修好那辆机动车的能力,无论是在保修期还是保修期过后。
So the rationale behind these franchise statutes is to guard against oppressive conduct by a manufacturer for a small business owner that puts up millions of dollars to be a franchisee. But the reason that these provisions have been passed is because consumers need a integrity in the franchise system that they can rely on, because if a manufacturer collects all this money, someone builds a building, and then they try and terminate that dealer for reasons other than good cause, not only is that dealer out a lot of money and could destroy the dealer and his employees, but the consumer who relied on that dealer to purchase vehicles and get vehicle service there are also out.
It may not matter as much in a metro area, but in the Midwest or the heartland of this country, if you're a local Ford dealer was closed for a bad reason, that customer might have to travel 200 miles to the next Ford dealer to get warranty work.
So yes, it's designed to provide a mechanism that dealers can feel like their investments are protected, but it's also there to make sure that consumers have a consistent network, a tapestry of dealers that they can rely on that they don't have to worry about being closed down at the will of a manufacturer for other than good cause.
So that's the reason, it's because cars and necessities and dealers put a lot of money into these businesses, and there is obviously a huge disparity in bargaining power between a multi-million dollar enterprise like General Motors Ford, Chrysler back then, and somebody who was scrapping together their life savings to open up a dealership. So that was the genesis of the franchise.
I'm going to try to play devil's advocate, right? So the dealer body has grown a lot in the last 20, 30, 40 years. You know, I don't know, maybe you know the exact number I don't, but clearly, you know, dealerships have grown as population has grown as demand has grown.
Do you think it's still necessary to have these type of laws in today's market when, you know, hypothetically speaking, I could make to claim that there's, you know, lots of third party, third party auto repair facilities and other ways to, you know, potentially get some service done? Do you think it's still necessary in today's market?
All right. So they're in lives of the rub, right? Because there are people who say, well, this isn't the 40s and 50s and 60s anymore. The owners of these dealerships are more sophisticated. Many of them are public, several of them are public companies or private equity groups or family offices. They can fight for themselves. They don't need, you know, federal and state statutory scheme to guard them against oppressive conduct and would come a long way.
But the reality is maybe the issues are different. Manufacturers still carry, you know, a heavy hand when they deal with franchise dealers.
但实际情况可能是问题不同。制造商在与特许经销商打交道时仍采取比较强硬的手段。
And I would submit that if they had their will, every time a dealer did something, let's say refused allocation of inventory or push back on factory upgrades of the dealership facility or didn't buy certain special tools or equipment. You know, this a human element and that, and I've seen it happen where the owner will say, I'm sorry, the factory rep would say, you know, what I'm going to issue you with termination letter.
And so, yes, we've, we've, and what does that mean? What does that mean for anyone listening that doesn't know? What does that actually mean? Well, you know, right now under the franchise laws, dealership can't be terminated unless there's a material breach and there's an opportunity to hear that breach. And sufficient period of time goes by and then mechanisms of the state statutes that allow for what hold a stay, which means suspension of determination until the matter can be heard by either an administrative law judge or federal or state judge, depending on what the state laws provide.
So, so if you're, you know, Toyota or whoever, like, you know, Nissan, any brand and you approve me as a dealer, I put up money to make that purchase the acquisition, the facility, blah, blah, blah, you can't just terminate me unless there's a, you know, a material breach and, you know, we could define what material means, but there has to be something very significant, maybe like some crazy fraud or something like that. Yeah, there has to be due cause. And that raises the bar because I have seen that without, and I've seen it in other industries.
I mean, I do a lot of work in the marine industry and the motorcycle industry. Those statutes don't exist in those cases. The dealers go out and they build whatever they feel they need to do to satisfy the manufacturer in terms of facilities. And then six months later, they don't do something the manufacturer would like them to do when they get a termination letter effective, you know, in 30 days. So those are really oppressive examples of, you know, factory behavior.
I'm not saying it's rampant. But without these franchise laws, I would argue that manufacturers would exercise their, you know, disparate bargaining power in a way that is very harmful to dealers and in turn harmful consumers. So there is a place for these laws still, even though they were, you know, promulgated at a period of time when, you know, the issues were different, but without these laws, people wouldn't buy these dealerships.
So if you don't get sophisticated people buying these dealerships, knowing that they can't suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them, then that in turn hurts consumers because there's not going to be a tapestry of sophisticated business people with depockets who can run these dealerships in a way to keep the services, service department running, keep the customers happy. It all trickles down to the consumer. So you're certainly not going to get, you know, just, I see the difference in the marine industry. People don't want to buy both dealerships. It's too risky unless, you know, they know that they have protection against unilateral conduct on the part of the manufacturer. So to get, again, keep under, understand the underlying premise here is that consumers need cars. The entire economy runs on the mobility of consumers to work. Hospitals to get, you know, you can go down the list.
So that can't happen unless there's integrity in the franchise system. So to say, well, we don't need these laws anymore. The manufacturers understand the limits. Spend the fine. They'll just work ethically on their own. Most will, most will, but not all. And a lot of times it depends on the personality of the person making a decision in a particular region. So there needs to be, needs to be some safeguards in place in order to attract the best of the best to run these dealerships.
Here's my take, right? I think that if you put that aside and you say, can car manufacturers retail and service vehicles better than dealership owners? I think that's the very like pragmatic and, you know, just simple way of looking at things in my head. Like the day that that happens, does that now mean that and, you know, if, and you can answer that question, like, can a car manufacturer retail and service a car better than the traditional dealership? If and when that happens, is that does that then make the case for a world where there's no, you know, or there's different franchise laws. And again, it's a big if and when because car manufacturers are manufacturers in that store core competency.
And so that's, and it brings up another point here, which is Ford. A lot of dealers have asked me about this and you have DM'd me send me messages, you know, anecdotes, just things going on at Ford. I think it's a really hot topic nowadays because they've sort of had these like murmurs of disintermediation of, you know, having EVs to some respect go direct to consumer. So I just want to understand from your perspective, is there a world where car manufacturers actually become the retailers or at least try to become the retailers? And, you know, do they do it in some creative way such as launching a new business unit and it's suddenly not, you know, under, you know, it's not confined to franchise laws and stuff like that. Sure, that has been tried over the years.
You know, even theoretically, if it can be shown that manufacturers are more capable at repairing cars faster and more effectively, then you get into the logistical question. Well, that's great. Everybody lives in Michigan, but or wherever the manufacturer is located, but, you know, they're mass marketing these vehicles to 50 states and around the world. So you need to be where the people are. So it almost moots out the notion that, you know, people that work internally at the engineers or whatever can repair these cars better and faster. It's just not a practical solution because you need to be in the neighborhoods where the customers are. So that's really what underlies the franchise system where, you know, manufacturer has reach and they can provide these services on a national basis.
I would think, you know, if you were speaking to a dealer here, they'd say, no, like, my techs are probably better than anyone at the factory because they see more cars and they see more problems on a daily basis, whereas it's more like, you know, I repair at the manufacturer where they're in a pristine, you know, hospital-like environment with all the tools sitting on a tray next to them provided by somebody else and they're able to do a repair on a vehicle that's brand spanking new, which doesn't require you to remove parts in order to get to the defective part that may already be rusted out or maybe 100,000 mile cars. So, you know, maybe that's a little out of my lane as a lawyer, but I've spoken to enough dealers to say that their teams are actually more effective simply because the manufacturers, engineers, don't really work in the same environment, real world environment, that a dealership technician does.
But, you know, the bigger picture, to your point as well, can there ever be a world where all of this is taken care of by the manufacturer? And, you know, I guess the question that should be raised is why is there this movement? Why is there discussions? Why are people talking about eliminating the dealer? Now, I would surmise it's because when we go to that, I say, we meeting you and me and everybody else because we all buy cars, right? How is the experience? Why would we be talking about eliminating the dealer unless it was less than positive? You know, we all know, you know, I see it. I mean, I don't always get cars from my family. So, I have to go in as joke consumer and, you know, used to be a cool client and, you know, try to deal directly with a client.
But then I kind of got interested. It's funny because doing what I do, I become, I'm still a salesman in a way. I'm still a car salesman, but not the traditional set. I get calls from lawyers. Keep in mind, this is not an area of specialty that most lawyers focus on. So, you know, lawyer, let's just say the New York metro area. Lawyers know of me. So I get calls almost daily. You know, my daughter's buying a car. Can you help me? They're like, they'd like to buy a car. Do you know a dealer that can help me with this problem? So I actually enjoy it because it's never really left my blood. But it kind of puts me front and center where I can kind of like be a proxy for a consumer and find out what it is there experiencing. So I get it. I understand why there's this satisfaction going into a showroom and going through the drill. What can I do to earn your business? When I hear that live.
Yeah. I think you bring up a good point. I think customer experience, right? It's the customer experience is the driver, right? If the customer experience is elevated, then maybe people are not looking at what's, you know, or what can be changed here because they're actually enjoying the experience. If they were enjoying the experience, I don't think there'd be too much chatter about eliminating the dealer. And it's not to say all experiences are bad. I mean, I've been buying cars for a long time and I've also helped people buy cars and I can say sometimes it's really refreshing. You know, you get really professional people who are not high pressure, who know the product, who are able to deal with the thing. And this is, you know, I'll get into this. I know that, you know, this is the argument against having direct sales.
So that is that buying the car is the easy part. You know, that may take a day, week, you know, somewhere in that realm. But you've got to deal with the trade-in. You've got to deal with the realities of the world. There are people that have less than perfect credit. You know, when you talk about dealing direct, I mean, if everything is perfect, yeah, I suppose that could go seamlessly. But we don't live in a world where everybody has great credit. People don't have trade-ins and they don't have questions and they need to measure the car to see if it fits in their garage. You know, all the real world things that those.
The nuances, yeah. The nuances. And those nuances are, you know, oftentimes very complex. I mean, I don't understand everything I'm signing and I draft half the stuff I think in a dealership. To go through a closing at a dealership, you know, it's kind of like buying a house, right? So the idea that we can do this remotely, you know, it's one of those things that sounds good on paper, but it doesn't really work.
You know, if I had advice to play devil's advocate now, because everybody says, oh, you're a dealer advocate, so you'll never acknowledge anything wrong with the franchise system. I mean, that's just not true. You know, let's look at the last five years. Dealers have made record profits as a result of the pandemic, right? Because I change people were moving out of metro areas into suburban. They needed an extra car. Whole host of things that everybody knows about. And there was a limited supply. So supply and demand took over. Dealers were charging list price in many cases over list price because of a whole other discussion. They didn't have floor plan costs, which saved them a lot of money. They didn't need to advertise because there was a shortage of vehicles out there. So they saved money all around the board. And they made huge profits.
So what I say to my clients is, look, you know, when I walk into your dealership, there's this feeling and this doesn't apply to all clients. I'm just kind of addressing the people that probably wrote into you and said, you know, dealers need to be eradicated from the face of the earth. High pressure attack. That's not okay. I would, I would debate that. However, that doesn't mean there are plenty of those experience, those showrooms out there.
And I say to my clients, look, you made an awful lot of money over the last 40 years. Why don't you hire people? Hate them really good salaries. Hate them. Pay someone who's really committed to making customers happy $150,000 a year. Rather than paying them front money of, you know, a couple hundred dollars, they have to eat what they kill and they become piranhas. And they, and they, they address consumers with a view towards, I got to close this deal today. Payroll is next Friday. I got to deliver that. That's not a healthy environment. Even if you go into the relationship with high ideals, it forces you to be someone that customers don't like dealing with. So, so I'll concede that transaction should be handled on a more professional level. They should be faster. So much shouldn't have to spend six or seven hours at a dealership. So there are things that franchise dealers need to do better. And I think that would diffuse some of the critical commentary that general consumers have and foster this notion that we have to deal direct with the factory.
And that's why can't everyone be like Tesla. You know, my argument there is, as I said earlier, buying the car is really the easy part. You try and get the best deal you can. But you're going to live with the dealer for now four years or five years, depending on the warranty. That's not so easy when you're dealing with a manufacturer, you know, ten states away. Ask it any Tesla owner. By the way, Tesla owner, you got to really know them. You got to be have one that's a friend. Can't just ask a Tesla owner was the experience greater. Happy with it. He's going to tell you, I love it. I hate dealing with the other. Ask friend or relative. Say, well, every time I have to bring my car in for service, I call, they send the flatbed out. Takes two days to get here and that car is gone for a week. I call and try to find out the status. I can't speak with anybody. Honest people. It's not just Tesla. Anyone that, you know, isn't that realm.
Yeah, the buying experience is good because you don't have to get, you don't have to negotiate. That's what really people don't like. And in just about every case, they're overpaying. All of the discussion. They're overpaying, but many of them will say I'd rather overpay that have to sit there and listen to somebody say, what do I have to do to get you into this card? Some of the things that people find.
Well, that's an important distinction, right? Like, I think Carmack's proved that out that people are willing to overpay for, you know, convenience, not having to negotiate or, quote, unquote, at least knowing that the amount they're overpaying is consistent and it's not potentially, you know, gouging or something along those lines. Yeah.
So that's a decision consumers have to make because I know that if I want to buy a pair of shoes and I go to Macy's, you know, I probably go somewhere and get a cheaper price, but it's convenient. The company has a good reputation. I know I'll get it a couple days. I know if I have a problem, they'll take it back. So those are kind of things that people are willing to pay extra for. Not everybody.
Most people still want to deal. I remember when Saturn came out, you know, the attraction there was you didn't have to negotiate. It's a long time ago, you know, it was fixed pricing. But I spoke to all the Saturn dealers I knew back then and they said consumers still come in and negotiate. So they say they don't like to negotiate, and practice. They really do.
So some of these platforms are designed to deliver what consumers want, but not every consumer is the same. Everybody is different. I know that when you deal direct with a manufacturer, you're always looking for some sale. And I don't mean to jump around, but you know, what's going on today is that those same consumers who felt comfort in buying from, let's say, Tesla, because they knew that the price was fixed. Everybody across the country was going to pay the same price. How do they feel now? Tesla has reduced the price by 25% of the same car that this customer bought, let's say a year ago. Well, is that a case to be made for, you know, claiming that like the markup just transcends the dealer body? Like that's pretty much like market pricing is market pricing. Is that ultimately the lesson here, right? Whether it's the OEM, you know, marking it up and not declaring it a markup or the dealer marking it up. Is that really the ultimate?
The message here is that when you deal with direct with a manufacturer, you don't know if they're making a huge profit on you. You know, when a manufacturer a year later reduces the price by 25%, I think it's safe to conclude, yeah, they made a huge profit on you because they lowered the price by 25%, presumably they're making a profit selling cars less than a reasonable return on investment.
But with the franchise system, and this is the centerpiece of the debate between, you know, pro factory direct and the dealers. They'll say that when you deal direct with a manufacturer, you're not in a competitive environment. Now, the economists that support direct selling will turn that argument around and say, oh, no, it's just the opposite. When you have a franchise system, that's like a monopoly because all these dealers control the price and they'll get this price won't discount.
In the real world, this is why I have a problem with economists who are not really automotive experts. In the real world, if you go out one day to buy a car and you say, I'm going to visit three or four dealers, not one of them will be, you know, it will be identical prices. Everyone is vying for your business. So you'll know by the time you get to the fourth dealership that whichever one gave you the best price is probably a very fair price because each one wants your business.
Unlike the scenario where you call online, Tesla or Lucid or Rivian and you're a force fatter price and you either pay that price or you don't purchase the vehicle, at least the vehicle. So that's the argument. You know, intro brand competition is good for the consumer. Dealing with a manufacturer directly eliminates the ability of a consumer to negotiate a discounted price. Now, is that bad? No, because some consumers would rather pay Tesla, you know, $132,000 for a Model S because they don't have to deal with the salesperson. You know, I would say, look, that painful two hours to speak to somebody that probably $20,000 more than you need to.
And the reason I say $20,000 is because now that same Model S is, you know, less than $100,000. So it all depends on the desires of the consumer. But I don't think it's a signal that the franchise system is so tainted that it needs to be either reinvented or eliminated altogether. And ultimately, you want convenience and it's more convenient to deal with a business owner in your neighborhood than it is to flatbed your vehicle to get service and not have the same level of communication.
Looking at what Ford has claimed and, you know, just Ford's philosophy on EVs and thinking about what Tesla has done, what's stopping Ford from going D to C with respect to EVs? Like what is actually stopping them? Why can't they do it if Tesla has done it? Why can't they do it for their EVs? If we're going to assume that they're not putting the customer first, you can make the claim that they are. You can make the claim that they're not. The only reason I'm saying that, by the way, is because it seems like they're trying to force feed customers, you know, certain EVs that are maybe not desired in the market just based on demand and what I'm seeing.
But all that aside, like what is stopping Ford from doing exactly what Tesla did? So all 50 states have dealer franchise laws that essentially say the same thing. If you're what's called a legacy manufacturer, that means a manufacturer that has an existing network of franchise dealers in the marketplace, then you can't sell direct because you can't. It's not fair to these business owners who have invested millions of dollars that now suddenly have to compete with their own manufacturer.
Tesla doesn't have that baggage, so to speak. They don't have a legacy franchise dealer. So they can start with a clean slate. And depending on the state statute, I mean, some states, even without a legacy of franchise dealerships, won't permit direct sales. And that's what Tesla has been fighting that battle for years now in those states that don't permit direct sales. Unless you have. So how do you buy Tesla on those states? A new one? Well, you have to go outside of the state. You wouldn't buy a Tesla in those states. You'd have to go. You have to figure out a way to buy it in a state, a neighboring state that does permit direct sales to consume. And like, what are some of those states that prohibit that? Oh, well, I know.
You know, it's fun. I should add to another category. There are plenty of states like New York and New Jersey and a few others on the East Coast that do prohibit direct sales, but have entered into stipulated settlements with Tesla to allow a finite number of dealerships state. Some of them showrooms, but don't allow sales. But in those states that have carved out an exception, they are, even though it's not withstanding the fact that there is a prohibition in the state's franchise laws, they have been granted relief, let's say, to open five or seven or 10 stores and a particular state. So even the states that have the right to thwart these direct sellers, they agree to it. There's a debate on whether that was wise. I didn't think that was a smart thing to do in certain states, but it's been done already. And, you know, those states, those consumers and those states that have a prohibition can still buy in the states.
I don't remember every single state's law as we sit here. It's easy for me to find out, but there are some states that just simply don't permit direct sales by Tesla. So you're saying that Ford is bound to additional restrictions because it's a legacy manufacturer that Tesla simply is not. That's correct. That's correct. So it's more challenging for a manufacturer like Ford who decides to go Tesla. That was the debate a year ago. Interesting. But 12 months has done. 12 months ago Ford was talking about separating out its EV manufacturing and selling their treating it as something else and equating itself with Tesla and try to sell direct and bypass their dealers. That met with a lot of resistance. And Ford eventually backpedaled and decided not to do that.
You know, the notion is that, well, we don't want, you know, internal combustion engine dealers selling EVs because they're not interested in selling EVs. Their comfort level is selling ICE vehicles and they won't do a good job. That's ridiculous. That's ridiculous. Dealers will sell tricycle if they can make a profit. And that's a good one. And that's true. But what do you think was the real reason? Do you think they wanted to like, you know, have a cruel, those economics at the top? Like what do you think they really were? I think we're felt back then, you know, 12 months ago that EVs were the new wave and they were going to continue and gain market share. And Ford probably wanted to trim down its dealer network. And this was a way to strangle dealers into economic submission.
I mean, that's a very nefarious view of things, but, you know, there's a lot of people out there that felt that that was a diabolical plan of Ford to try to reduce the dealer network. It didn't work out. There are sales of EVs. And this is true of all the EVs. This is really topical. This is last month, two months. They've hit a brick wall.
You know, the, I don't mean to jump around, but it kind of answers your question indirectly. Was it smart for Ford to try and do that? And I say, no, it was foolish. It was foolish because EVs are not tried and true. They have only eight or 9% market share. More than half of that is Tesla. So that isn't enough of a stronghold to reinvent your franchise system and try to do an end-run around it. And here, only 12 months. I mean, that's like, it's like yesterday, 12 months in the car business is not now Ford has a surplus inventory of Mach E's F-150 lightnings. They're sitting on dealer lots, not because EVs are bad. It's because it's going to take a very long time, in my opinion. I mean, 10, 15, 20, 30 years before manufacturers get to the point that they thought they were going to get too much sooner as of a year ago.
And I think it's because people have resistance to the unknown. You know, there's a lot of discussion about whether EVs are truly environmentally friendly, whether they cost, whether they cost more than ICE vehicles to operate. They aren't more expensive to purchase, but there are a lot of studies out there that say they're more expensive to operate. There is range anxiety, right, of the inability to charge a vehicle. How long is the weight going to be if you find the charging station? Are the charging stations going to be operable? I mean, these are all real world problems.
And there have been early adopters, and those early adopters have adopted EVs. But what about the rest of the market? What about the other 90 percent? So do you really want to build a franchise system around less than 5 percent? I mean, Ford doesn't have 5 percent market share. Tesla has 5 percent. And the all of the other manufacturers share the other 5 percent. So you're going to reinvent your franchise system over theoretically 1 to 2 percent market share. It's kind of a fool's play. And that's been the argument of the dealers.
And unfortunately, Ford is probably the one worth talking about because they were a little precipitous. And jumping in with both feet, they mandated that if dealers wanted to sell EVs, they had to belly up a well over a million dollars. If you were Ford and Lincoln dealer, you had to pay two million dollars to retrofit your facility to accommodate charging station equipment, public facing charging stations. You name it. There's a lot of renovations that needed to be made. And dealers would say, well, why would I pay a million to sell a product that the consumers have not embraced yet? It just seems like there's too much politics involved.
Of course, the Biden administration has been putting pressure on all the OEMs, the auto manufacturers to get EVs into the marketplace, be 100 percent EVs by 2030, 2035. So manufacturers were spending billions of dollars, billions of dollars on an unproven means of transportation. And now as recently as a month ago, some cases as recently as a week ago, there are telltale signs that EVs, I'm not saying they're going to be eradicated, but this is going to be a long, slow slog. And a lot of selling that's like telling a child, you know, seven year old, they got to start liking broccoli. It just doesn't happen.
And that's what consumers are facing right now is they don't want to be told what they have to buy. They know what they like. And they resent the fact that, you know, the federal government is mandating that these manufacturers kind of reinvent what the roadways are going to look like in this country. So there's a little bit of a backlash and Tesla has some real problems right now because they lowered the price. It's kind of a race to the bottom now. You know, there's been a price war in play.
So what I'm, I guess what I'm saying is it's a very volatile automotive industry. So no one should be staking territory and saying, this is the right answer. This is the wrong answer. It is really a lot to be learned. And we're in the process as we speak right now, figuring out how this is all going to unfold. So when Ford says to its dealer body, well, you need to reinvent yourself. We're not going to give you EVs. Oh, we are going to give you EVs. You have to spend a million to renovate your facility. Otherwise you're not able to sell it. It's just like the Wild West. People are just spewing nonsense.
And then it goes back to your question. Is it necessary to have these franchise laws in place? No over 1960. Well, here we are in 2023 and Ford is threatening to basically take away. If they really felt that EVs were going to be the wave of the future, then by precluding their dealers from selling them unless they spent the exorbitant amounts of money, they're basically saying, we're going to freeze you out.
So that's why there are franchise laws. And that's why in some states, dealers have gone to court to put a stop for his precipitous behavior and put a hold on it until we see how the market unfolds and whether demand continues to increase for EVs or whether it's going to go into the hybrid realm.
It's going to be the case, whether it's plug in or other, even Toyota.
不管是插电式还是其他型号,甚至包括丰田汽车,这都会成为现实。
Toyota knows a few things about selling cars, right? They were last to the party with EVs. They believed in hydrogen fuel cell technology. And now the former chairman of Toyota said, I told him words and substance said, I told you so. So things are unfolding almost on a weekly basis. And that underscores why franchise laws exist because dealers would otherwise be having to operate their business at the whim of whatever an automotive executive is buying into.
They said Ford CEO Jim Farley had lost for Tesla. Elon Musk lost. Wanted to be Tesla. Maybe he was pressured by investors. But you know, that was 12 months ago. As of recently, there's a business insider article. I think they just came out yesterday or a few days ago that says Tesla's really facing a tough economic crisis right now.
So who knows what will happen a year or two from now with Tesla. So to emulate that business model and say that Tesla needs to continue to be direct to consumer, I would argue the opposite of Tesla. Cool. Me and ask my two cents. I would say, listen, now that the time has come for you to embrace the franchise. It hasn't been around for 125 years as a force. I mean, the best and the brightest. What about a manufacturer's have continued to embrace franchise system. So what makes Tesla so much smarter than everybody else? What benefit that's a bold statement to make?
What benefit do you think Tesla would get by embracing a franchise system? Well, you know, first of all, service. They'd have the ability to get their customers serviced on a more convenient basis. Do they need franchise for that? Can they do that just corporate owned? Well, they could. They could go form an alliance with, you know, pet boys or, you know, some private book. Why? Why resist? Why resist with every other manufacturer? And I'm just playing devil's advocate. They could be 100%. But why are they deciding to resist with every other manufacturer in the United States has embraced, which is the franchise system? It's not just automobiles. It's food. It's gymnasium. It's printing cup. Why is the franchise system so good? Why is 70% of every good in service that you would buy from a franchise sales operation? Why is that not good enough for Tesla?
There was a time that Elon Musk said that he may consider the franchise model. He's not 100% of those. He has. But I think that if Tesla is in dire straits as it seems to be, then why wouldn't he embrace the franchise system? Because consumers need to be made aware why Tesla has superior benefits over and above other EVs. Who's going to express that? When you have now you have BMW and Mercedes and Audi and just about Kia and Hyundai coming out with EV models and sales people touting the benefits. Now Tesla's got competition.
Tesla's set for eight years or nine years without competition. It had its run and that's great. And to his credit, it was way ahead of the curve. But he's got competition now. And when you have competition, you have to build a better mouse trap. And I'm not anti-Tesla. I'm just saying that when you look at the model between BMW and Hyundai and Mercedes and all the American manufacturers and Asian and German manufacturers, they freshen up their products, right? Every couple of years. The model S Tesla looks the same today as it did nine years ago. There's no difference. People like change. They want to feel like they bought a new car. It looks like a new car.
So there's a lot of things that have led to this discussion. Why can't all the other manufacturers be like Tesla? And I'm not, I'm not condemning that light of thinking. I'm just saying that Tesla now is just another auto manufacturer and it's got to be able to compete in the marketplace. And all of the other competitors have showrooms in every city, most cities that have a comp.
Well, I think they need to get creative now. I mean, I think their sales have grown pretty consistently for the last five, six, seven years. And I think it's now demarcated. We're entering a different point in the cycle. It's clear that demand across the board is cooling significantly. Tesla is not immune from that. And so I think that they're playing with lots of different strategies now. It seems lowering pricing, trying some advertising. I'd be curious to see what you're saying. If refreshed models comes into play and how that actually impacts demand, right? Because I'm sure they have some data. If we refresh a model, demand spikes, X amount or whatever. So that's interesting. I'm sure they're considering or they may take.
Gee, how I'm encumbered. Here I am a lawyer talking about talk like an automotive manager, dealer or an OEM. You know, when it got to get you back into deals with business, then your blood, you know, you can't escape. You know, a lot of people say they in your lane, you're a lawyer, worry about the law at a market vehicles, but it goes, it goes hand in glove. The issue that we have to deal with. Do you get like does for GM with all these investments are making, does anything here give you like 2009 vibes, you know, any bankruptcies, any potential for that, anything concerning on the big picture?
Well, I think the startups, you know, Lucid, I don't know about Rivian. I haven't really studied Rivian, but Lucid, I know, you know, if you ask me, you know, I just saw one on the way to work today. What a beautiful looking card is. Wouldn't mind buying one of those except that, you know, what I read is they've only sold like, I don't know, 1600, just guessing the low number nationally. You can't just stay in their operation. So they were doing at the auctions, I think like the brand new ones. This was like maybe eight, nine months ago. I remember they were doing like 40, 50% below MSRP. Like something crazy. I actually posted about it on Twitter. But yeah, they were taking some pretty big hits. I don't know what they're recently. I haven't seen any recently, but yeah, there's a answer.
You know, I do what I want to lease a car that's going to have like a zero residual value in three years or have no infrastructure to perform warranty work, at least if they had a dealer. This happened with the fisker, you know, at least at least dealer is one of those companies go out of business wants to keep their customers happy because they want to put them in another vehicle pair. They have an incentive to keep their customers happy. So yeah, will there be a bankruptcy? I don't want to talk in those terms with respect to Tesla. Not Tesla. Not Tesla. I'm saying I'm actually, I was thinking more of like the domestic's like Ford and GM with the investments they made on the eV side and the big proclamations.
Well, keep in mind, there's a safety net. This business insider article talks about that. And that is that the legacy manufacturers have ice vehicles. So they can still satisfy and make a lot of money on selling, you know, F-150s and Chevy Sierra's and the regular internal combustion engine vehicles kind of soften the blow of the losses they've taken on the investment so far. So they have that safety net. So I don't really think we'd be seeing any insolvency or bankruptcy from any manufacturers as a result of EVs. They can cushion that. I worry more about the eV only. But, you know, interesting anecdote to this is, I don't know if you're familiar with Vin Fast, but that's a Vietnamese manufacturing company, EV vehicles. They're coming into the US, but they're looking to market their products through franchise dealers. I find that interesting because they've studied the market before they've, you know, watched this product and they've decided contrary to what the trend has been over the past 10 years now to go back to the franchise dealer system. I'd love to speak, you know, the CEO of that company and say, well, why are you going to depart from the trend, which is, you know, EVs come in and sell direct. So, you know, maybe I'm on the podcast. Yeah, I think that would be a great interview.
What are the shifting gears for a second? What are the top concerns that you're hearing from dealers nowadays? Like, what are dealers concerned about in the market and why are they calling you? A lot of dealers, and this goes, gets a little bit away from, you know, relationship between the manufacturer and the dealer. There are always those issues. But more and more now dealers are being targeted by, you know, plaintiff's lawyers that are capitalizing on, you know, wage an hour, labor law type cases under payments, discrimination cases, employment discrimination. But wage an hour is a big area now. There are lawyers are fighting. There's a sweet spot there because they can recover attorney's fees if a dealer or any employer violates minimum wage requirements.
And the problem comes up in the context primarily automobile salespeople who are paid commissions. And a lot of dealers aren't aware of the requirements, you know, just because someone sells 10 cars today, you feel all their cover. But if they don't deliver those cars in two weeks or three weeks, they're paying for that two week period, maybe below minimum wage. So you can't compensate for that by saying, yeah, but at the end of the month, he made far more than minimum wage taken to a commission. So dealers sometimes fall into the trap of not realizing that no matter how many deals a salesperson has, pending that the dealership needs to make sure that they're paying that employee at least minimum wage. Not to fall into that trap. So there are dealers who are paying close attention to that. They're being victimized. Or they're being the targets, I should say, of these plates, wage an hour firm. So that's a big area. So I would say like a lot of employment line.
Are you seeing anything on the macro level like FTC stuff like that? Yeah. You know, the FTC has always got their eyes on dealership practices, you know, disclosures, truth and lending. A lot of the pitfalls that dealers can fall into under FTC guidelines are eliminated because more and more dealers are engaging third party services in compliance companies to make sure that they're providing all of the disclosures. So they're kind of outsourcing. They're not really as part of their DMS, you know, the dealer management software, where they are through the benefit of these companies that are really attuned to make sure that they're providing all of the disclosures. Through the benefit of these companies that are really attuned to making sure that they fall into these traps. The dealers are generally compliant, not because they're sitting down devising documents, but they're relying on third parties.
These compliance companies integrate with their DMS. So all of the delivery documents and sales documents are compliant. Doesn't mean every one of them is doing that. The FTC looks, I think, more at advertising. So delivery documents, I think, for the most part are not a risk for dealers, but advertising. The typical thing is that dealers try and do to be different to guarantee something, you know, guarantee a minimum valuation on a trade-in or a reduced interest rate rate when it's only available to certain individuals who qualify, you know, military, personnel, first responders, but not disclose that it's not available to everyone. You would think that this day and age, you know, dealership general managers would be looking out for those type of problems, but yeah, the FTC, the state attorney general's consumer affairs departments, they're all looking at these advertisements. And a dealership is kind of like a trophy head, because when they now a dealership, only really what is notoriety and press release and it makes the attorney general, the FTC person look like they're really out there advocating for the consumers. And maybe they are on a sound, you know, critical of that, but I just know, having represented many, many dealers, you can make all of the customers whole and provide refunds or whatever the overcharge. The overcharge was or the damages were, it's very difficult to get the attorney general or whatever the regulatory agency is to agree to a confidentiality agreement, because they want to headline and want to say we got this dealer.
So that's one of the, you know, that goes back to my small claims days back in the, in the 80s, you know, you had two strikes against you and a dealer was always, was always like, call a trophy. That hasn't changed. So dealers really need to be vigilant about making sure they comply with federal advertising requirements, as well as state, you know, attorney general, each state has their own nuances about what they are prohibited from doing. So you really need to engage a compliance firm to make sure that whether it's a firm or a third party compliance firm or through your state dealer association, find a resource, but don't fall victim to that because that could cost millions, some cases.
Speaking so, while we're on the topic of consumers, and you know, the thing that came to mind is throughout the last couple of years, I had a lot of people reaching out to me about, you know, can I return my lease? Can I buy it? Like what happens with it? Another question for you is from a league from where you're from your position. What are the most consumer friendly manufacturers, right?
If I lease a Honda versus a Chevy versus a BMW, or maybe I buy something, but, you know, what are the, what brands would you say you recommend or had to have the least amount of gotchas or catches in their documents and give you the most flexibility as a consumer?
So the one that impressed me the most, first of general answer, there are very few manufacturers that I would consider onerous or consumer unfriendly. They're vying for market share. They all know what each other are doing. And it's the rare case that a manufacturer is trying to discourage consumers from continuing to stay loyal to their brand. So this is not like it used to be in the 60s and 70s, you know, where was it got? Environment.
So by and large, all manufacturers are consumer friendly. The one I thought that stuck in my mind, and this is not even recent, is when Hyundai offered to basically forgive car loans if people got laid off. This is, this goes back to when, you know, the country was in a big recession and sales were lagging. This was even referenced in a recent article I mentioned that, you know, Hyundai was pretty creative and out front and try and swage the concerns that consumers had that if they got into a 36 month loan or a 48 month loan, what if I get laid off? Because, you know, so many companies were failing back that. And it was very creative and I thought addressed consumers concerns in a way that really did them a lot of good and placated a lot of consumers. So it doesn't mean they're, you know, any more consumer friendly than any other manufacturer. It just showed that they actually sat down and thought about how do they engage a consumer on a level that the consumer is confronting on a day to day basis.
What about like lease return restrictions or not from Hyundai, but I'm saying like, you know, you can't return to sleaze here, you can't buy it out. Sorry, not you can't render, you can't buy it out. Stuff like that. What are your thoughts on that?
I look, you know, my view is that the sooner should be able to return a general motor's lease than any general motor's dealer. There shouldn't be a $250 lease termination fee. I mean, these are things that manufacturers have decided a different way to recoup that. That revenue don't don't, you know, most consumers aren't reading their lease when their lease is over. So with Rivet, they're told they have to pay a $250 or $500 lease termination fee. What's the thinking there means they're definitely probably not going to buy or lease that same product, if you're leaving the consumer with a bad taste or, you know, they nickel and dime you on wear and tear. And you don't see that so much anymore, but that was a problem. I didn't give in time with a scraper and Nick or a scuff wind up costing a lot. Again, I don't see that. I mean, I'm not on the front lines there. I mean, that's where I kind of drew the line. I'm not really on lease return lanes by self. So I can't really speak to what really goes on there. But just as a consumer myself.
I always found that those got your fees. Really would struggle with the handles back. So that's got to be a good words. I feel like we could go on forever, but we're going to, you know, I want to wrap up shortly. So, you know, a couple more, I think personal questions. You founded, you found the dealers versus cancer, which is, you know, I'll let you, I'll let you tell us about that, you know, kind of walk us what happened and why you founded this. Why you founded this nonprofit and just, you know, if you can even see background on that.
Well, that was, that was probably the lowest point in my life. 70 years ago, I was in this very office and I had an annual physical. And I just remember that week being really crazy. We had a lot of closings going on. It was just, this place was buzzing, you know, and my secretary said I have doctor, so and so on the phone wants to go over your results. And I said, I was like, so busy, please, to tell him I'll call him back.
Then she came in and she goes, no, he really would like to speak to you now. That's pretty pushy. So I kind of said, hello, doctor. He goes, well, listen, I didn't want you to, I didn't want to leave a message because we have to talk about next steps. We got the results of your blood work and, you know, concerned about prostate cancer. So that kind of, for me for a loop. But what does that mean? He said, well, we got to do further testing. So make a long story short. I went in for about a month's worth of testing. It was really stressful because I knew they felt there was cancer there. They wouldn't come out and say it.
And then in the course of this, I said, you know what, this has been a month now. You never get results right away. Go to with doctor. You know, you'll get a result next week. You're sitting there on pins and needles now that they've scared that Jesus out of you. I said, you know what, I'm, as I look out of my office window here, I can actually see the skyline of New York City. I said, I'm going to go to the very best cancer hospital probably in the world. I won't mention it, but I'm sure everybody knows.
So I had to start from scratch because they don't take any test results from anybody else. And make a long story short. You know, they told me I had stage four metastatic cancer. There was nothing they could do and that I should start preparing, you know, for end of life. So obviously that was a very bad. And, you know, I'm still here, by the way, right? So I know, you know, this has a happy ending. This is seven years later. But I went through it was like being buried alive. I was told it was nothing that could be done.
I applied for an experimental cancer treatment. I went into the city. They made me wait three weeks to have a meeting with these specialists that were doing this clinical trial. And my wife was with me and I go in there thinking that maybe there's some hope here and they walked in. These two white coats and said, sorry, we looked at your case. There's nothing we can do. Well, wait a second. This is experimental. How can I not qualify for an experimental treatment? I said, are you telling me I'm so far gone? You don't want me to ruin your study? You know, I said, well, we wouldn't put it that bluntly. But, you know, yes, we don't think it can help you.
So my wife, you know, I'm on the mouthpiece of the family because I'm a lawyer, right? My wife is kind of more refined than I am. She got up. She said, you know, my husband is a lawyer and I hear about his appeals. Isn't there some type of an appeal that could be done here? He feels fine. You're telling me he's so sick. He's not going to last too long. He'll start feeling pain through his body and he doesn't. I want an appeal. So the doctor said, look, if you don't get chemo immediately, meaning right now, go downstairs to the second floor, I'll never forget. I don't know that we can keep you going too much longer.
My wife made this plea and he said, all right, I'll look into this and we'll get back to you as soon as possible, but you need to be here on Monday. So Friday, I'm sitting here in my office and I get this call that I'll never forget. And I had a cell phone. I picked it up. He said, listen, this is Dr. Schlewensau because you don't know me, but I'm the head on colleges at this internationally known because I'm the number one doctor here and I'm looking over your case and I want to tell you your wife saved your life. What are you talking?
He said, I'm delighted to make this call, but I'm also horrified to tell you that we made a horrific mistake and that you don't have metastatic stage four cancer. All I can recall was putting my, I had the cell phone here and I put my hair that my head said five times. Oh my God. Oh my God. How did this have happened? They said, well, someone made a mistake. And what they really saw throughout your body was something called sarkoidosis, which is a benign process, which happens when your body is I did have prostate cancer, but it was treatable. It didn't spread. So they said they were able to treat it. I'm fine now, but during that two to three month period, it was like I said, being buried alive and I owe it to my wife who requested this appeal because they were about the semi downstairs for chemo.
For cancer, I didn't have, which would have been, you know, nail in the coffin. Literally. So anyway, having gone through that experience, the worst part of it, by the way, was telling my children. This was going on even worse than the diagnosis. But somehow, miraculously, you know, I escaped, you know, this death penalty.
Automotive news read a full page article. It said the wrongful termination lawyer wins his own wrongful termination case. And it got a lot of notoriety. I thought from that, I said, you know what, this must have happened for a reason that I was spared. You know, I have a lot of relationships in the automotive industry. And I thought, well, I was spared for a reason. It's probably because I have a good reach. I know a lot of dealers. I know a lot of factory people. I know a lot of people that are in the realm service dealers and manufacturers. I said, I'm going to start this organization called dealers versus cancer.
Part of it was to run a, I like classic cars, old Buicks from my old car jockey days. And part of the, so the fundraising event would be centered around this cruising for a cure, cruising for a cure classic car show. And then what I would do is on the day of the car show, I would ask every dealer that was interested to reach out to me if they could give us $20 for every car they sell on the day of the car show. And we raised a lot of money, maybe, you know, $30,000 the first year kept going up. And I sent it out to the prostate cancer foundation in California.
So here I went from, you know, thinking my days were numbered to actually doing something good. And so I've been, you know, keeping that up. It's been seven years. I'm in great health. But every time I, you know, sometimes I just sit here and stare out the window and wonder how that happened. What it means, you know, I don't get upset anymore. I don't, you know, money doesn't upset. I don't blame you. Office happens to blame you. You know, I remember those days when I was, you know, rolled up into a ball at home, you know, and I had to kind of like fake my way through the office because I wasn't believing happening. I didn't tell anybody in my law firm and I'm faking it committing fraud on my own firm because I was afraid that if I told them the truth, they would all leave and worried about my dealer clients.
And I went to the president of the bar association and I said, listen, I have thousand dealer clients. I'm handling cases for all of them. My doctors told me I said, I got to find another law. You help me find lawyers for these cases. And then, you know, two days later, I got this phone call and I called them up and I said, you know what? Never mind. I don't need any. Never mind. But I went psycho. So, we're glad to have you with us. And what a crazy story. So that's unbelievable. I learned a lot. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, but there's something to be said. The silver lighting is everyday matters and whatever is plaguing you from a business point of view or relationship. It's not, you know, it's not, it's not a lot of life and health and happiness. And, you know, that's all that really matters.
So even someone like a trial lawyer can actually have learned a lesson. You know, we get, you know, that was, that was a lesson that I'll never forget. And everybody should hopefully learn from it. You don't have it as bad.
Incredible story line. Before we wrap up, any, how can the audience get in touch with you if anyone wants to reach out to you?
令人难以置信的故事情节。在我们结束之前,如有任何人希望与您联系,观众该如何与您取得联系呢?
Yeah. Well, our website, you know, this is one of the, one of the few advantages of being a little older. When I had to select the website, I didn't have a lot of competition. So I got dealerlaw.com. You can either reach me at info at dealerlaw.com or my first initial last name, L. Bolivia. B-E-L-L-A-V-I-A at dealerlaw.com.
Lain de lavia. Thanks for coming on the pod. This was really, really awesome. Thank you so much. I enjoyed it. Thank you for having me. All right.
Lain de lavia. 感谢你来到这个录音节目。这真的太棒了!非常感谢你。我很喜欢这次访谈。谢谢你邀请我。好了。
Hope you enjoyed that episode. Please give the podcast a rating. Consider subscribing to the show and check the show notes for links to what we talked about. Thanks for tuning in. I'll see you guys next time. Bye.