Are SR/SR+ "bait and switch" for, at least, Californian?

[ucmndd]

As @MP3Mike said, Tesla will still happily sell you the car you ordered at the price you agreed to, just after the first of the year.

Can’t claim bait and switch when there’s no “switch” happening.

 

[M3BlueGeorgia]

The OP should quit getting their knickers in a twist.

Historically, Tesla has at least partially resolved this kind of issue, but the resolution won't occur this quarter (Q4)

My suggestion to the OP is to keep delaying delivery until Tesla offer to offset at least some of the lost tax credit.

 

[Bonk1977]

There are probably thousands of cars that Tesla promised to deliver by year end, and they failed. People were told, "if you order now, we guarantee delivery by 12/31". Tesla will quietly settle or the class action guys will be all over it... They have settled these in the past, they will settle this one.

If you're saying too bad etc, you get nothing, you're lucky because it didn't happen to you. Had you been the unlucky one, you'd be just as upset.

So lets remember, 3k per car back to the buyers per 1000 cars. Thats 3mm, which is nothing. Tesla generated 756 million in operating cash flows last quarter.

 

[Tam]

...you'd be just as upset...

Yes. I too would be very upset.

However, this is a public relations problem but I would not have a legal case.

The court system values documentation.

I could say that Tesla guaranteed that through my ears and my ears are the proof.

And Tesla pulled out their documentation that it says clearly that it does not guarantee to beat the year-end deadline.

Who would the jurors would side with? My ears or Tesla's written documentation?

 

[ucmndd]

There are probably thousands of cars that Tesla promised to deliver by year end, and they failed. People were told, "if you order now, we guarantee delivery by 12/31". Tesla will quietly settle or the class action guys will be all over it... They have settled these in the past, they will settle this one.

If you're saying too bad etc, you get nothing, you're lucky because it didn't happen to you. Had you been the unlucky one, you'd be just as upset.

So lets remember, 3k per car back to the buyers per 1000 cars. Thats 3mm, which is nothing. Tesla generated 756 million in operating cash flows last quarter.

What losses exactly will you be attempting to recoup in this fantasy class action?

The contract is simple. You take the car at the price offered, when it’s available, or you take your money back. Nobody owes you a dime more.

As for that “guarantee”:

 

[pbfoot]

Bad customer service / experience is not actionable in most scenarios.

There is no “bait and switch” and no contractual damages. There might be a case for foreseeable consequential / expectation damages for the loss of the tax credit, but that would be an uphill battle given that there wasn’t really a contractual guarantee of delivery.

 

[vickh]

I love it when people wait until the last minute and something doesn't happen and then they blame everyone else for their procrastination. It's not as if the cars have been readily available for a year.
If you had ordered it 9 months ago, you would have gotten twice the tax credit. 15 months ago would have gotten 4 times the credit.

It's a shame that Tesla wasn't able to accurately predict the number of orders of specific models that they were going to get, and then produce at least that number of every combination to make everyone happy.

+1
6-9 months ago was the best price/time for a SR

 

[ElectricIAC]

Wikipedia defines : Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud used in retail sales but also employed in other contexts. First, customers are "baited" by merchants' advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods are not available, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher priced items ("switching"). In the United States, no cause of action will exist if the purveyor is capable of actually selling the goods advertised, but aggressively pushes a competing product.

Here, Tesla advertises Model 3 at a low price (SR/SR+) and induce CA customers to make an order early in order to take delivery by end of year, but when customers make an order and wait, they discover that SR/SR+ are not available by end of year AND the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher priced items in order to get delivery by end of year. Tesla was capable of actually selling SR/SR+, but Tesla intentionally delayed the production of SR/SR+ in order to aggressively pushes a competing product.

Do you think we have a case?

Don’t think it’s exclusively a California thing. I had/have an order for an SR as a business car and in the days leading up to was contacted about an inventory LR AWD car available locally (DFWTX) with a small adjustment immediately. I entertained the idea of trading in the Mrs’ MR (Offered ~40K before sales tax credit) but it was just too late in the year to do the trade and take the now paltry tax credit on her tax filing so we passed on it. Considering changing the order to a M/Y and placing the addtl deposit money down at this point..

 

[super20g]

I doubt it is bait and switch. Just a disorganized af company that sells cars that are availiable to people that are availiable to take them, even if they are selling out from under others or not meeting delivery estimates, etc. They did make it easy for me to buy a AWD but I had to try more than one location to get them to let me order a SR, however... They really really didn't want to but eventually let me. Definitely no different than traditional dealerships no matter how they said they were going to act.

 

[jasonanthony]

I understand why the OP feels baited and switched...

My issue is that Tesla never contacted me that my vehicle will not be delivered by end of year. All reps I talked to told me that they anticipate something to be assigned to me by end of year. I only realized that I most likely won't get my vehicle year end from this forum. Even after the year concluded it was me reaching out to them for them to tell me now "late January."

I also posted this screenshot before.. but this enticed me to purchase the car to get the vehicle year end. The language "will be" sounds very definitive for CA buyers. Maybe poor word choice but eh..

 

[super20g]

I understand why the OP feels baited and switched...

My issue is that Tesla never contacted me that my vehicle will not be delivered by end of year. All reps I talked to told me that they anticipate something to be assigned to me by end of year. I only realized that I most likely won't get my vehicle year end from this forum. Even after the year concluded it was me reaching out to them for them to tell me now "late January."

I also posted this screenshot before.. but this enticed me to purchase the car to get the vehicle year end. The language "will be" sounds very definitive for CA buyers. Maybe poor word choice but eh..

Well, with that wording... Surely Tesla will eat the credit amount for CA buyers...

 

[E-V-D]

What losses exactly will you be attempting to recoup in this fantasy class action?

The contract is simple. You take the car at the price offered, when it’s available, or you take your money back. Nobody owes you a dime more.

As for that “guarantee”:

View attachment 495117

I understand why the OP feels baited and switched...

My issue is that Tesla never contacted me that my vehicle will not be delivered by end of year. All reps I talked to told me that they anticipate something to be assigned to me by end of year. I only realized that I most likely won't get my vehicle year end from this forum. Even after the year concluded it was me reaching out to them for them to tell me now "late January."

I also posted this screenshot before.. but this enticed me to purchase the car to get the vehicle year end. The language "will be" sounds very definitive for CA buyers. Maybe poor word choice but eh..

These two screenshots tell VERY different stories.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Doubt it. I’m firmly in the camp that they’ll tell buyers to deal with it and pay up if they want their clean driving machine.

 

[super20g]

Doubt it. I’m firmly in the camp that they’ll tell buyers to deal with it and pay up if they want their clean driving machine.

I'd do business with another company if they literally promised me something, failed to deliver, then didn't make it right.. But that is just me. I am not die hard Tesla...

 

[ElectricIAC]

I'd do business with another company if they literally promised me something, failed to deliver, then didn't make it right.. But that is just me. I am not die hard Tesla...

That’s totally your right as a consumer. I personally hung on the cliffs edge of buying Tesla for over 2 years seeing if their growing pains shook out and it’s apparent that they still haven’t.

If my budget was depending on tax subsidy personally I’d turn to the private used market instead where you’ll find it’s much faster and easier to buy a car and in some cases cheaper too. (I’m aware that the numerous price drops make the used market seem ridiculous but everything is negotiable over drinks)

 

[patrick40363]

Wikipedia defines : Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud used in retail sales but also employed in other contexts. First, customers are "baited" by merchants' advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods are not available, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher priced items ("switching"). In the United States, no cause of action will exist if the purveyor is capable of actually selling the goods advertised, but aggressively pushes a competing product.

Here, Tesla advertises Model 3 at a low price (SR/SR+) and induce CA customers to make an order early in order to take delivery by end of year, but when customers make an order and wait, they discover that SR/SR+ are not available by end of year AND the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher priced items in order to get delivery by end of year. Tesla was capable of actually selling SR/SR+, but Tesla intentionally delayed the production of SR/SR+ in order to aggressively pushes a competing product.

Do you think we have a case?

No.

 

[Tam]

...The language "will be" sounds very definitive for CA buyers...

That's very good documentation here and it's very clear so I do believe that you do have a case to bring Tesla to a court.

However, when you go to court, Tesla will also show your deposit contract stating:

"Limitation of Liability. We are not liable for any incidental, special or consequential damages arising out of this Agreement. Your sole and exclusive remedy under this Agreement will be limited to reimbursement of your Order Fee."

If you didn't like that kind of limited penalty when Tesla fails you, then you should not make a deposit or you should modify your contract stating Tesla's liability to your desire.

 

[jasonanthony]

That's very good documentation here and it's very clear so I do believe that you do have a case to bring Tesla to a court.

However, when you go to court, Tesla will also show your deposit contract stating:

"Limitation of Liability. We are not liable for any incidental, special or consequential damages arising out of this Agreement. Your sole and exclusive remedy under this Agreement will be limited to reimbursement of your Order Fee."

If you didn't like that kind of limited penalty when Tesla fails you, then you should not make a deposit or you should modify your contract stating Tesla's liability to your desire.

Not my intention to bring any case to court. I just always document everything.

I am okay with waiting.. I really just want to have my car, and want to know a good solid ETA for it instead of every rep giving me a different answer. I wish Tesla would do better with their communication. I also believe in companies doing the right thing instead of just sweeping any commincation under the rug.

Either way I still believe in the product and want the car.

 

[Krytron]

That's very good documentation here and it's very clear so I do believe that you do have a case to bring Tesla to a court.

However, when you go to court, Tesla will also show your deposit contract stating:

"Limitation of Liability. We are not liable for any incidental, special or consequential damages arising out of this Agreement. Your sole and exclusive remedy under this Agreement will be limited to reimbursement of your Order Fee."

If you didn't like that kind of limited penalty when Tesla fails you, then you should not make a deposit or you should modify your contract stating Tesla's liability to your desire.

FYI. from Gallet Dreyer & Berkey, LLP | Limitation of Liability Clauses — Does It Mean You Can Breach With Impunity?

"Limitation of liability clauses are all the rage, whether among participants on a construction project or in other fields. In the construction world they typically provide that one party cannot be liable to the other for any damages due to delays on the project. Other examples provide that one party’s liability on the project may not exceed a stated cap.

Such clauses are now routinely enforced by the courts since they “represent the parties’ agreement on the allocation of the risk of economic loss in the event that the contemplated transaction is not fully executed.” Although they may often seem to be unfair, the courts will let sophisticated parties negotiate their own deal and will “let them lie on the bed they made.”

However, there are limits to how one-sided such clauses can be. The courts have held these clauses to be unenforceable when “in contravention of acceptable notions of morality, the misconduct for which it would grant immunity smacks of intentional wrongdoing.” In other words, if one party acts in a fraudulent, malicious or grossly negligent manner, it will not be able to hide behind a limitation of liability clause."

If Tesla did the "bait and switch", they cannot hide behind the "Limitation of Liability."