GM and VW also forbid its US dealers from selling to Canadians so let's get off the Honda and Toyota thing. It's an industry problem, not a Japanese brand problem.
To all the pro-embargo supporters, would it be okay if a US dealer refused to sell a car to someone because of the colour of their skin? Yes or no?
Why in the world does any company have a right to control what its consumers do with the goods they buy once they've paid for them? It's a ludicrous concept. A company has no more right to control whether its goods are being exported than whether they're being used for any other purpose.
According to this ridiculous logic, car companies have a right to control how fast their consumers drive or where they're being parked. Once a product is sold the manufacturer has no rights whatsoever to it any more.
Why in the world should any company be allowed to manipulate the market? The whole point of anti-trust, anti-collusion, non-binding pricing and such laws are to encourage competition.
Wow. You're really embarrassing yourself with some of these comments.
This issue has nothing to with the colour of anyone's skin. Unless you consider Canadian exporters to comprise a homogeneous race that can be identified by skin color.
And where has anyone said anything about any company trying to control what someone does once they pay for their product? You've missed the entire point of the topic. Car companies are attempting to control what happens to their product
before it is paid for not after.
As I said before, businesses sell to people because it helps their bottom line. If selling to someone would negatively affect their bottom line there is no law in the world that forces a businesses to sell to anyone. As has been made clear already, Canadians are not being discriminated against, exporters are.
Toyota Canada and Toyota USA are divisions of Toyota. Anti-trust laws, etc. are meant to apply to diiferent companies acting in concert. They are not meant to apply to one company competing with itself.
also, as I said before, I am not "pro-embargo." I just have yet to see any arguments beyond "I should be able to save money ..."