Bummer for those who paid for self drive.

[Canuck]

If the price turns out to be more like $10k, they're going to charge $10k, and there's nothing you will be able to do about it.

I guess it's cognitive dissonance that makes people say such things -- as if they got a deal on something that doesn't even exist, after it is pulled from sale. If I paid, I would be concerned, but Tesla should have you stuffed and keep you in the lobby as evidence of a satisfied FSD buyer.

But, in reply to your quote above, there is something I can do about it. I can pay $10K and have Tesla retrofit my car. It will be on the hoist next to your car, who gets the retrofit for "free" or $7k less then me. Then both our cars can drive home and park in our garages.

I'm not holding my breath. I am holding my FSD cash.

A solid piece of life advice that applies quite well here: Get it in writing.

Sounds like projection to me.

i guess we'll see if/when the time comes.

Yes, that's the best answer.

 

[HeavyAaron]

IANAL

they very clearly sold the vehicle to those of us who ordered when FSD was still an option as being able to add it later at a set price.
.
.
.
it's still available in our accounts as a $5k upgrade with no "you must add by this date" attached to it, just as it was when we ordered. it's there even though you can't buy it right now when ordering the car.

So, according to you... you were offered the sale at $3k at purchase or $5k later. And you are currently offered the sale at $5k, and it's later. So.... deal fulfilled? If they stopped offering the product at $5k today you cannot claim that it wasn't offered to you at $5k "later" as it was. Later != forever.

 

[PessimiStick]

I guess it's cognitive dissonance that makes people say such things -- as if they got a deal on something that doesn't even exist, after it is pulled from sale. If I paid, I would be concerned, but Tesla should have you stuffed and keep you in the lobby as evidence of a satisfied FSD buyer.

But, in reply to your quote above, there is something I can do about it. I can pay $10K and have Tesla retrofit my car. It will be on the hoist next to your car, who gets the retrofit for "free" or $7k less then me. Then both our cars can drive home and park in our garages.

I'm not holding my breath. I am holding my FSD cash.



Sounds like projection to me.

I don't have FSD. I didn't buy it because it's currently vaporware. I'm specifically talking to the people that think they will be able to pay $4k for it in the future once it does exist, if Tesla decides it's a $10k feature. There is no way in hell they would honor the $4k price in that circumstance.

 

[Daniel in SD]

it is in writing: it was on the website when we purchased and it's still in our account as available at that price. they very clearly sold the vehicle to those of us who ordered when FSD was still an option as being able to add it later at a set price.

if this ever went before a court because tesla tried to significantly change those terms, i would imagine the court can look at the entirety of the evidence and not just the purchase agreement. they very clearly offered it for $3k now or $5k later (or $4k, depending when you ordered). the argument could be made that the description on the website (and subsequent availability at that price) constitutes an addendum to the purchase agreement or even a separate contract. i'm not a lawyer, but the fact that it's not in the purchase agreement even though it was clearly spelled out in the purchase steps on the website when we ordered (to me anyway) lends itself to ambiguity in the contract, which the court can look at external evidence to resolve.

like i said, i guess we'll see if or when it ever comes to that. also, again, i'm not at all disputing the fact that they can charge whatever the hell they want for people who are ordering now (or ordered after FSD was removed). my argument only applies to those of us who bought when FSD was still an option.

You could just ask Tesla to clarify so you have it in writing. My interpretation was that $4k was the current price to upgrade after purchase (I still didn't buy it BTW). It would be crazy for Tesla to guarantee a future price with no expiration, who knows what the dollar will be worth 10 years from now?

 

[crackers8199]

So, according to you... you were offered the sale at $3k at purchase or $5k later. And you are currently offered the sale at $5k, and it's later. So.... deal fulfilled? If they stopped offering the product at $5k today you cannot claim that it wasn't offered to you at $5k "later" as it was. Later != forever.

they did not put an expiration date on it when it was offered - that's their fault, not mine.

You could just ask Tesla to clarify so you have it in writing. My interpretation was that $4k was the current price to upgrade after purchase (I still didn't buy it BTW). It would be crazy for Tesla to guarantee a future price with no expiration, who knows what the dollar will be worth 10 years from now?

see above for my response. they could very easily have put an expiration date on it (or a "you must add it by this date to get the $5k price"). they did not.

 

[PessimiStick]

they did not put an expiration date on it when it was offered - that's their fault, not mine.

"Fault" would imply that it matters. It doesn't. They will charge what they want to charge and you'll have no recourse.

 

[clostridium]

when we bought the car, we had the option to either add FSD for $3k or in the future for $5k. that is what we agreed to. if they had said "you can buy it now for $3k or later for $15k," i (and many others) would have bought it for $3k. they have to honor the price that was in the agreement when you bought the car (which is why they were allowing people to add it for $4k even after they raised the after the fact price to $5k).

now, anyone who orders now that it's no longer an option...that's a different story entirely.

Was the future cost of FSD being $5k in the agreement when you purchased the car? It's one thing if Tesla were to try to come back and say "I know you paid 3k but we need more to make this work". That would clearly enrage many and I'm no lawyer but seems like it would open them to legal action. It's another thing entirely to say that they were committing to a price on something you didn't buy based on the website materials. If you've got that price committed to in the purchase agreement that's different but I don't recall seeing that.

 

[crackers8199]

"Fault" would imply that it matters. It doesn't. They will charge what they want to charge and you'll have no recourse.

must be nice to know everything.

 

[crackers8199]

Was the future cost of FSD being $5k in the agreement when you purchased the car? It's one thing if Tesla were to try to come back and say "I know you paid 3k but we need more to make this work". That would clearly enrage many and I'm no lawyer but seems like it would open them to legal action. It's another thing entirely to say that they were committing to a price on something you didn't buy based on the website materials. If you've got that price committed to in the purchase agreement that's different but I don't recall seeing that.

everyone here seems to be making this argument, and i still don't and can't understand it. they clearly advertised the car as having all of the hardware necessary to be fully autonomous (they're still doing this), and advertised the option to buy FSD for $5k if you didn't want to buy it up front (and didn't have an expiration date on that offer). people made their decision based on that set of information, even if it wasn't in the purchase agreement.

had they not clearly advertised the car as having all the hardware necessary (and FSD as being able to be turned on with just a software update), i'd agree with you...but that's not the case. that's the part that everyone who tries to make this argument seems to be conveniently forgetting IMO.

 

[PessimiStick]

They said that, but they were wrong. If you paid for it, they'll upgrade you at their cost since they sold you a feature that needs upgrades to work. If you didn't pay for it, they owe you nothing, and they can charge whatever they feel is an acceptable market price.

 

[crackers8199]

They said that, but they were wrong. If you paid for it, they'll upgrade you at their cost since they sold you a feature that needs upgrades to work. If you didn't pay for it, they owe you nothing, and they can charge whatever they feel is an acceptable market price.

all they would have had to do is say "you have until X date to add this feature at a cost of $5k after purchase" or "we cannot guarantee the ability to add for $5k after purchase will be available for any length of time." they did not do that. their failure to do so is their fault, not ours.

 

[HeavyAaron]

they did not put an expiration date on it when it was offered - that's their fault, not mine.

How have you reached the conclusion that NOT specifying an expiration date and ALSO not stating that it is good forever means that it is good forever? Neither situation is implied by the literal reading.

see above for my response. they could very easily have put an expiration date on it (or a "you must add it by this date to get the $5k price"). they did not.

They also could have easily added "$5k price guaranteed for life of car" but did not. You are inferring something that was not, IMO, implied, and it certainly was not stated.


I am being very literal here with the wording YOU are stipulating to that the price will be $5k later. It is later and the price is $5k.


Stated another way, a perfectly reasonable reading of "the price will be $5k later" is "the price will be $5k [at some] later [date]."


To be equally clear, I think your reading is equally valid. But you cannot claim that, with an ambiguous statement, only your interpretation is the correct one, and you want the courts to enforce your particular reading.

 

[crackers8199]

Stated another way, a perfectly reasonable reading of "the price will be $5k later" is "the price will be $5k [at some] later [date]."

and like i have said more than once, i guess we'll see if / when the time comes. it's just as perfectly reasonable to read it the way i (and many others) did.

 

[HeavyAaron]

and like i have said more than once, i guess we'll see if / when the time comes. it's just as perfectly reasonable to read it the way i (and many others) did.

And I agree that your reading is reasonable. It just isn't the only possible reading.

Consider:

"A Model 3 costs at least $46k today, but we expect it to be $35k later."

It's the same construction, but I would read that as at some future date the price will be $35k for at least a moment in time.

In order for you to insist upon Tesla selling the product for $5k in the future I think you have to show more than it to be a reasonable interpretation. I think you have to show that it's the ONLY reasonable interpretation. And I think that just is not so.

Out of curiosity if they ever charged $2k for it in the future, would you consider that a violation of the terms you believe they have committed to?

 

[Canuck]

I don't have FSD. I didn't buy it because it's currently vaporware. I'm specifically talking to the people that think they will be able to pay $4k for it in the future once it does exist, if Tesla decides it's a $10k feature. There is no way in hell they would honor the $4k price in that circumstance.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I agree with your view. I thought you paid for FSD so you wouldn't have to pay $10k if that's the price but I follow you now, and I did exactly what you did, also thinking it could cost me more later but that's better than potentially being fleeced, at least in my view.

In order for you to insist upon Tesla selling the product for $5k in the future I think you have to show more than it to be a reasonable interpretation. I think you have to show that it's the ONLY reasonable interpretation. And I think that just is not so.

That's not the law. The law is based in contract. In order to establish a contract, you need (1) offer, (2) acceptance, and (3) consideration. If all three are not present, there is no binding contract to enforce. There's no "consideration" in your example so no contract to enforce.

Also, puffery is allowed at law, and the doctrine of caveat emptor is alive and well, all of which work in Tesla's favour.

 

[crackers8199]

Out of curiosity if they ever charged $2k for it in the future, would you consider that a violation of the terms you believe they have committed to?

depends what you mean by a violation...they would be well within their rights IMO to hold us to the $5k we agreed to when purchasing the car. that would suck for us, but i wouldn't blame them if they wanted to go that route. luckily i don't think there's any chance of that happening, so it's moot.

Also, puffery is allowed at law,

puffery wouldn't really apply here because i don't believe you can make the argument that "no reasonable person" would have taken their claim that the car had all the hardware needed for full autonomy seriously. there wasn't really any pushback on that claim.

 

[Knightshade]

all they would have had to do is say "you have until X date to add this feature at a cost of $5k after purchase" or "we cannot guarantee the ability to add for $5k after purchase will be available for any length of time." they did not do that.

Yes, they did.

Last week when they mentioned the FSD purchase option was going away but would be available off-menu for another week or so.

So nobody can claim they didn't get a chance to buy at the post-purchase price promised and with warning that price was going away.

 

[crackers8199]

Yes, they did.

Last week when they mentioned the FSD purchase option was going away but would be available off-menu for another week or so.

So nobody can claim they didn't get a chance to buy at the post-purchase price promised and with warning that price was going away.

you're kidding, right? i've made very clear i am talking about those of us who bought months ago, not people who are buying now. they're clearly well within their rights to charge people who order now that FSD isn't being advertised whatever price they want to charge them in the future.

 

[HeavyAaron]

That's not the law. The law is based in contract. In order to establish a contract, you need (1) offer, (2) acceptance, and (3) consideration. If all three are not present, there is no binding contract to enforce. There's no "consideration" in your example so no contract to enforce.

I disagree. I think crackers8199 *has* consideration - namely the purchase of the car. *If* the contract were written as "sale of ownership and use of Model 3 with option of future upgrade at $5k" it's valid. Again, IANAL. However, my layperson interpretation on that looks perfectly legitimate. The option of the future upgrade undeniably has some value and thus would increase the market clearing rate for Model 3.

Consider Model X. The fact that a tow option CAN be later purchased increases the value (and thus sale price) of the X without that option installed.


Now, I don't think those conditions were part of the sale contract. They certainly weren't made explicitly, and it is my contention that they were not (sufficiently / clearly) implied as to be binding. But meeting the offer/acceptance/consideration pieces? Yeah, all present.

 

[crackers8199]

*If* the contract were written as "sale of ownership and use of Model 3 with option of future upgrade at $5k" it's valid.

and i agree, it's not in the purchase contract...however, the fact that it was listed on the option sheet the entire way through the purchase process lends itself to ambiguity in my mind (i.e. why bother listing it there as an available option later and then not put it in the purchase agreement?), which the court can use external evidence to resolve. that's my point, really.