Dealers usually have to prep a new car on the lot—a quick inspection of lights, brakes, steering, leaks; aligning the headlights; stuff like that. I'd argue the dealership model is relevant here.
Yes but there’s no reason it has to be a dealership doing that. The manufacturer could do that before they deliver the car. The manufacturer could run the dealership themselves. There’s not a ton of great reasons to preserve this institution in law.
>The manufacturer could do that before they deliver the car.
Cars do get jacked up in transit. Like "a large piece of metal road debris pierced the window and seat" bad (personal experience). So, even if it leaves the factory in pristine condition, someone at the end of the line will need to look at it to make sure it's 100%. Tesla has decided that final check responsibility falls on the end user.
Also I suspect it's more efficient for the manufacturer and dealerships to just roll all of that into the end-of-the-line inspection instead of splitting it over two locations.
>The manufacturer could run the dealership themselves.
This would work if there was a way for states to ensure the manufacturers had some serious skin in the game so they'd fear legal action.
The dealer being a legal entity incorporated in the same state you bought the car insures that they operate under state law and makes it far easier for either the state or the individual to seek legal redress when needed.
In addition, the fact that they're separate from the manufacturer means their incentives are also not aligned. They're incentivized to find issues, both pre delivery and during maintenance (especially during the warranty period)
how are their incentives not aligned? both are there to make money by moving as many vehicles as possible. if a problem is found with a vehicle they have on their lot then it’s out of inventory until it’s fixed or replaced. the incentives look exactly the same to me.
