"Affordable Shipping for All Act"

[Punatang]

"Can you help us find that in the 1958 document you provided?  It seems to address the labeling but I do not see where it dictates the computation of the charges.  3-F-3 seems to be the relevant section and there is nothing about "averaging" or "equalizing".  I don't see those words anywhere in the document."

While there is no specific verbiage directly addressing the equalizing of destination charges, the issue comes down to the specifics of the law, which states:

• Every manufacturer of new automobiles distributed in commerce shall, prior to the delivery of any new automobile to any dealer, or at or prior to the introduction date of new models delivered to a dealer prior to such introduction date, securely affix to the windshield, or side window of such automobile a label...
  

So, it comes down to where the "window sticker" is attached, which by law, is where it's made. It would therefore be utterly impossible for the manufacturer to know where each car is being shipped to when its assembled. 

Further, the law for the first time actually required a "window sticker." Prior to the law being enacted, vehicles did not have any form of pricing displayed on them and a dealer could charge whatever they wanted to. Back then, you COULD actually order a specific car and get a confirmed build date and go to Detroit and take delivery of it, sans no destination charge. That outraged dealers to no end.

Ironically the impetus of the law was extensive lobbying by the dealers against the auto makers. While investigating that claim, Congress found significant deceptive financial practices by the dealers. In the end, the law was to provide transparency to the consumer with respect to automobile pricing and make it a level playing field.

LOL weak sauce!  You never let anyone get away with anything like the above Julie.  =)  You're tap dancing to no music.  It's a rule about a label.  You put the shipping charge on the label.  You charge what you charge.  There is no averaging or anything like what you are trying to assign to this document.  Nice try.  Even if you were correct, and you are not, it would still be govt meddling in private business.  A great legal mind like yours knows better than presenting irrelevant information.  No amount of lipstick can help your pig.  =)