History question..
Discussion
Seems Daimler AG is the parent company of MB
the link goes back to the early 1900's when Daimler (germany) supplied engines to
"The Daimler Company Limited, until 1910 The Daimler Motor Company Limited, was an independent British motor vehicle manufacturer founded in London by H J Lawson in 1896, which set up its manufacturing base in Coventry. The right to the use of the name Daimler had been purchased simultaneously from Gottlieb Daimler and Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft of Cannstatt, Germany."
"The name Daimler is used by two completely separate groups of car manufacturers. The history of both enterprises can be traced back to the German engineer Gottlieb Daimler who built the first four-wheeled car in 1889."
the link goes back to the early 1900's when Daimler (germany) supplied engines to
"The Daimler Company Limited, until 1910 The Daimler Motor Company Limited, was an independent British motor vehicle manufacturer founded in London by H J Lawson in 1896, which set up its manufacturing base in Coventry. The right to the use of the name Daimler had been purchased simultaneously from Gottlieb Daimler and Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft of Cannstatt, Germany."
"The name Daimler is used by two completely separate groups of car manufacturers. The history of both enterprises can be traced back to the German engineer Gottlieb Daimler who built the first four-wheeled car in 1889."
Chipchap said:
Trivia questions:--
1]Where did the idea of calling the cars Mercedes Benz originate ?
2] When did Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz first meet ?
1 After a war (can't remember if it was WW1 or 2) Daimler felt that their name was too German and Mercedes was more French so would encourage sales outside Germany.1]Where did the idea of calling the cars Mercedes Benz originate ?
2] When did Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz first meet ?
2 About half past 3? (ie I have no idea). OOhh! Have Googled. That's interesting isn't it!
john2443 said:
1 After a war (can't remember if it was WW1 or 2) Daimler felt that their name was too German and Mercedes was more French so would encourage sales outside Germany.
2 About half past 3? (ie I have no idea). OOhh! Have Googled. That's interesting isn't it!
The name Mercedes came from the Christian name of the daughter of the importer of Benz cars into Austria [I think] -- He was Emil Jellineck and she Adriana "Mercedes" Jellineck.2 About half past 3? (ie I have no idea). OOhh! Have Googled. That's interesting isn't it!
Karl Benz & Gottlieb Daimler never actually met ! http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1324882-1-1324893...
We had these questions as part of our Mercedes Benz internal exams way back when I was studying to attain the status of "Mercedes Benz Transport Consultant"
There was a legal case during WW1 when (as I recall) someone disputed whether dealing with the UK end of Daimler could be a valid contract given that dealing with a German company was illegal at the time. I think the verdict was that dealing with Daimler UK was effectively dealing with Germany irrespective of where Daimler Ltd legally existed.
You are partly correct, although in fact it was Continental Tyres that was in effect the enemy controlled company, not Daimler. The decision of the House of Lords was not unanimous on the point and was somewhat nuanced:-
The Law Reports said:
Daimler Company Limited - Appellants v Continental Tyre and Rubber Company (Great Britain) Limited - Respondents.
House of Lords, 30 June 1916
[1916] 2 A.C. 307
A company was incorporated in England with a capital of £25,000 in £1 shares for the purpose of selling in England tyres made in Germany by a German Company, who held the bulk of the shares in the English company. The holders of the remaining shares (save one) and all the directors were Germans resident in Germany. The one share was registered in the name of the secretary, who was born in Germany, but resided in England and had become a naturalized British subject.
After the outbreak of the war between England and Germany an action was commenced in the name of the English company by specially indorsed writ, issued by the company's solicitors on the instructions of the secretary, for payment of a trade debt. In answer to a summons for judgment under Order XIV. the defendants alleged (1.) that the company was an alien enemy company and that payment of the debt would be a trading with the enemy; (2.) that the action was commenced without the authority of the company. The Master gave leave to the plaintiff company to sign final judgment, and his order was affirmed by the judge in chambers and by the Court of Appeal:—
Held, that the action was commenced without authority and ought to be struck out as irregular.
Held, further, apart from the question of authority, by Lord Atkinson, Lord Parker of Waddington, Viscount Mersey, Lord Kinnear, and Lord Sumner, that leave to defend the action ought to have been granted, as the circumstances were such as to require investigation in reference to the control and management of the company; by the Earl of Halsbury, that the company was in substance a hostile partnership and was therefore incapable of suing, and that any payment to it would be illegal as a trading with the enemy; by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline and Lord Parmoor, that the company, being registered in England and carrying on business in England, was not an enemy company or a company of an enemy character.
Order of the Court of Appeal [1915] 1 K. B. 893 reversed.
Per Lord Parker of Waddington (with the concurrence of Viscount Mersey, Lord Kinnear, and Lord Sumner):
Semble* a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and carrying on business here or in a neutral country by properly authorized agents resident here or in the neutral country is prima facie to be regarded as a friend; but it will assume an enemy character if its agents or the persons de facto in control of its affairs are resident in an enemy country, or, wherever resident, are adhering to the enemy or taking instructions from or acting under the control of enemies; and any person knowingly dealing with a company in such a case is trading with the enemy. The character of individual shareholders cannot of itself affect the character of the company; but the enemy character of individual shareholders and their conduct may be material on the question whether the company's agents or the persons de facto in control of its affairs are in fact adhering to, taking instructions from, or acting under the control of enemies. A company incorporated in the United Kingdom but carrying on business in an enemy country is to be regarded as an enemy.
* Law-French for "it seems that."House of Lords, 30 June 1916
[1916] 2 A.C. 307
A company was incorporated in England with a capital of £25,000 in £1 shares for the purpose of selling in England tyres made in Germany by a German Company, who held the bulk of the shares in the English company. The holders of the remaining shares (save one) and all the directors were Germans resident in Germany. The one share was registered in the name of the secretary, who was born in Germany, but resided in England and had become a naturalized British subject.
After the outbreak of the war between England and Germany an action was commenced in the name of the English company by specially indorsed writ, issued by the company's solicitors on the instructions of the secretary, for payment of a trade debt. In answer to a summons for judgment under Order XIV. the defendants alleged (1.) that the company was an alien enemy company and that payment of the debt would be a trading with the enemy; (2.) that the action was commenced without the authority of the company. The Master gave leave to the plaintiff company to sign final judgment, and his order was affirmed by the judge in chambers and by the Court of Appeal:—
Held, that the action was commenced without authority and ought to be struck out as irregular.
Held, further, apart from the question of authority, by Lord Atkinson, Lord Parker of Waddington, Viscount Mersey, Lord Kinnear, and Lord Sumner, that leave to defend the action ought to have been granted, as the circumstances were such as to require investigation in reference to the control and management of the company; by the Earl of Halsbury, that the company was in substance a hostile partnership and was therefore incapable of suing, and that any payment to it would be illegal as a trading with the enemy; by Lord Shaw of Dunfermline and Lord Parmoor, that the company, being registered in England and carrying on business in England, was not an enemy company or a company of an enemy character.
Order of the Court of Appeal [1915] 1 K. B. 893 reversed.
Per Lord Parker of Waddington (with the concurrence of Viscount Mersey, Lord Kinnear, and Lord Sumner):
Semble* a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and carrying on business here or in a neutral country by properly authorized agents resident here or in the neutral country is prima facie to be regarded as a friend; but it will assume an enemy character if its agents or the persons de facto in control of its affairs are resident in an enemy country, or, wherever resident, are adhering to the enemy or taking instructions from or acting under the control of enemies; and any person knowingly dealing with a company in such a case is trading with the enemy. The character of individual shareholders cannot of itself affect the character of the company; but the enemy character of individual shareholders and their conduct may be material on the question whether the company's agents or the persons de facto in control of its affairs are in fact adhering to, taking instructions from, or acting under the control of enemies. A company incorporated in the United Kingdom but carrying on business in an enemy country is to be regarded as an enemy.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 8th July 07:27
Gassing Station | Classic Cars and Yesterday's Heroes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff