[mytailorisrich]

To you perhaps, but not to universal postal service laws...

""The universal service obligation (USO) is the core of the Postal Services Directive (97/67/EC, amended by Directives 2002/39/EC and 2008/6/EC). This is the requirement that letters and parcels should be delivered to each home or business premises, on 5 days each week, throughout each EU country (with exemptions)."

Tesla has a right to postal service in the same way as everyone else.

[einr]

Force majeure trumps all obligations. There is no law being broken here.

[mytailorisrich]

What force majeure? Do you know what the term means?

[einr]

To answer in kind: yes, do you?

https://da.se/2023/11/totalstopp-for-nya-telsabilar-far-elon...

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_majeure

"Med force majeure avses vanligen krig, upplopp, brand, naturkatastrofer (som översvämning, orkan, jordbävning), explosioner, strejk, nya lagar som förbjuder fullföljandet av avtalet, och liknande."

I'll assume you read Swedish since you seem to be an expert at the issue. If not, you can plug these into a translator yourself.

[abhibeckert]

For the benefit of everyone else reading this discussion who doesn't speak Swedish... here's what I got from a good (paid) translation service:

"Force majeure typically refers to war, riots, fire, natural disasters (such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes), explosions, strikes, new laws prohibiting the fulfillment of the contract, and similar events."

The thing is though, Tesla isn't suing because their license plates aren't being delivered. They are suing because it was* literally impossible for them to access an essential government service.

(* was, because Tesla has won a preliminary decision forcing the state to allow Tesla to arange an alternative delivery method - probably Tesla sending someone around to the factory to pick up the plates)

In my opinion Force Majeure would only be a valid defence if it was the number plate factory workers who went on strike, but that's not what happened. The number plates are there, ready to go, and the state refused to allow Tesla to access them.

Force Majeure is not a blanket blanket right to do whatever you want. It only defends you in cases where you had no reasonable alternative available due to the strike.

I'm reminded of a time when flooding closed a railway line that I'd bought tickets for... the railway company didn't argue force majeure and cancel everyone's booking. They hired a dozen busses. You have an obligation to find a reasonable solution if the service you'd normally provide isn't possible.

In my case, the train service was 100% aware that they had a low bridge over a river that floods whenever there is heavy rain and therefore they couldn't argue that it was an unforeseen event. They would have been liable, not only for the cost of the train ticket, but also for any other damages/etc suffered by someone who was suddenly unable to get where they needed to go (booking a flight or regular bus wasn't possible, those don't have enough spare capacity for an entire train full of people). In this case, there is a perfectly reasonable and zero cost alternative to having license plates delivered by their usual method, and they can't refuse to use that alternative.

[Legogris]

Do you? Strikes are recognized as legitimate force majeure in general.

You know how to find your way for that from Wikipedia, I assume. From PostNord:

https://nitter.net/PostNordSverige/status/172767223321924818...

https://nitter.net/PostNordSverige/status/172773029292270847...

[stcredzero]

Force majeure trumps all obligations.

Making unions a "Force majeure" basically gives them the ability to smite as if they were gods.

European states have recently developed this annoying habit of "protecting" the rights of citizens, but then leaving loopholes that render the protections null and void. By recently, I mean since the early 20th century. The Weimar Republic is the poster child of that.

[tuukkah]

Companies are not citizens.

[stcredzero]

Workers at Tesla ARE citizens. The ones who voted against the collective bargaining agreement are the ones being forced against their will, using tactics reminiscent of strike-breakers from the 1900s.

Also, the reference has more to do with European laws being crafted with such exceptions, not whether they apply to natural persons or corporations.

[3np]

Did you read the reply to your previous duplicate comment before copy-pasting your now moot point in the current top thread?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38438450