AChaserr I understand your position, and don't disagree on the concept. My point is this, in a court of law, the term Safety will not be used as it is being used here, it will be defined, by the court, through evidence. In new battery tech, it will be an argument amongst the experts, as to what constitutes a safety issue, and decided by the court. Not wanting to start more speculation, and given that Tesla will have to start answering questions, which will provide real information, I will give just one example of what I am talking about, for clarity, and then speculate no more, as it can be endless, and we are missing most of the relevant facts. SPECULATION. Tesla might argue that condition Y has never caused a safety anomaly, and no damage or injuries have been caused by condition Y, and further, that nerfing the batteries eliminates any potential of Y turning into a safety issue. Therefore this is a contractual issue. Owners might argue that having to nerf the batteries to avoid the potential of Y becoming a possible safety issue, is in itself a safety issue , and therefore the batteries are damaged beyond "normal degradation" and must be repaired or replaced under warranty. END OF SPECULATION, and I speculate no mas, until some facts come from Tesla.