Completely Disgusted.

[Canuck]

Almost any poster on this board could run a company operations better.(tech breakthroughs aside)

I wouldn't bet on that. You seem to underestimate the task of getting a new automotive company off the ground.

And even accepting your premise, some of us can't put the tech breakthroughs aside. It doesn't make right any BS Tesla puts us through but again it's a baby/bathwater thing and to quote Madonna, we're "keeping the baby".

Actually, oral contracts are still enforceable as contracts. They are just not easy to prove if the other party denies saying what is claimed they said.

Before even talking about the ability to enforce an oral contract you need to talk about admissibility of evidence and I don't see any exception to the parol evidence rule that applies.

 

[oktane]

I wouldn't bet on that. You seem to underestimate the task of getting a new automotive company off the ground.

And even accepting your premise, some of us can't put the tech breakthroughs aside. It doesn't make right any BS Tesla puts us through but again it's a baby/bathwater thing and to quote Madonna, we're "keeping the baby".



Before even talking about the ability to enforce an oral contract you need to talk about admissibility of evidence and I don't see any exception to the parol evidence rule that applies.

I believe parol evidence applies to oral agreements prior to the written agreement, but perhaps not to oral contracts that amend the previous written contract. In this case the OP has an amended written email/contract. Also, the CA Supreme Court has ruled to allow parol evidence if misrepresentation is involved, as in this case.

From your link:

You enroll in a health club, and the salesperson tells you that the contract can be cancelled. You later decide you would like to cancel, but the written contract provides that it is non-cancellable. The oral promises of the salesperson are generally non-enforceable. However, the salesperson in misleading you into the terms of the contract constitutes a misrepresentation and you may seek to rescind the contract.​

 

[Canuck]

Also, the CA Supreme Court has ruled to allow parol evidence if misrepresentation is involved, as in this case.

I forgot the OP's case, but it seems to me he needs facts to prove intentional misrep, or the very least negligent misrep, since I do agree that California is trying to kill the parol evidence rule in relation to fraud. It seems to me that most judges like to exclude parol evidence unless you can show some form of deceit or gross negligence, otherwise the case is easily overturned on appeal. The Plaintiff also has the burden of proof so Tesla need not disprove anything.

 

[McRat]

It could also depend on the laws in both Hawaii and California concerning automobile consumer protection. They override sales contracts.

It's why automakers must sell you a service manual, can't void your warranty easily, must allow you to buy special tools including digital diagnostic factory tools, can't withhold spare parts to non-OEM Service Centers, and about 100 other things. And AFAIK, there is no such thing as a non-refundable deposit with volume auto makers. Not sure whether it's a legal issue or not, or just common industry practice.

 

[stopcrazypp]

It could also depend on the laws in both Hawaii and California concerning automobile consumer protection. They override sales contracts.

It's why automakers must sell you a service manual, can't void your warranty easily, must allow you to buy special tools including digital diagnostic factory tools, can't withhold spare parts to non-OEM Service Centers, and about 100 other things. And AFAIK, there is no such thing as a non-refundable deposit with volume auto makers. Not sure whether it's a legal issue or not, or just common industry practice.

According to this article, non-refundable deposits are common with dealerships, although there are cases where you can sue to get your money back if you can prove the dealer was deceptive or broke their end of the deal (instead of you canceling).
Be Careful When Leaving A Vehicle Deposit | There Is No Automatic Right To A Refund - Consumer Reports News

 

[McRat]

According to this article, non-refundable deposits are common with dealerships, although there are cases where you can sue to get your money back if you can prove the dealer was deceptive or broke their end of the deal (instead of you canceling).
Be Careful When Leaving A Vehicle Deposit | There Is No Automatic Right To A Refund - Consumer Reports News

Yes, it might not be a legal issue directly, but on delivery day, a legitimate refusal to accept delivery due to features, workmanship, or misrepresentation can be a problem. This is probably why you don't see mainstream dealers keeping deposits.

IIRC, there has been at least 3 times where I had to collect my deposit back. Never an issue. Always dealer's error though.

 

[McRat]

According to this article, non-refundable deposits are common with dealerships, although there are cases where you can sue to get your money back if you can prove the dealer was deceptive or broke their end of the deal (instead of you canceling).
Be Careful When Leaving A Vehicle Deposit | There Is No Automatic Right To A Refund - Consumer Reports News

I would say not 'common'. Perhaps used car lots?

 

[kort677]

 

[Surfer]

LOL

 

[Surfer]

A manager at Tesla HQ is looking into this for me. Local manager was zero help.

 

[oktane]

Every time I requested my deposit back on a rare custom ordered car, it has never been an issue. Several dealers told me it was illegal for them to keep my deposit if I didn't want the car. Agree with McRat.

Tesla's stance is a simple intimidation tactic to pressure you into accepting their poor quality cars at delivery or forcing you to keep your obsolete "new" car, even though new features are announced even before delivery.

In my opinion, it's a no teeth policy. Be the first to test this theory in court, will only cost you <$100.

 

[timvracer]

Actually, oral contracts are still enforceable as contracts. They are just not easy to prove if the other party denies saying what is claimed they said.

Not when there is a written contract on the same subject, it typically supersedes the oral contract. If there was no written contract, then you could make a case for an oral contract. However, there could be other issues here at work, just addressing this notion of oral vs. written.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Every time I requested my deposit back on a rare custom ordered car, it has never been an issue. Several dealers told me it was illegal for them to keep my deposit if I didn't want the car. Agree with McRat.

Tesla's stance is a simple intimidation tactic to pressure you into accepting their poor quality cars at delivery or forcing you to keep your obsolete "new" car, even though new features are announced even before delivery.

In my opinion, it's a no teeth policy. Be the first to test this theory in court, will only cost you <$100.

I'm going to trust the opinion of Consumer Reports and Consumer Law Group that they cite that it's legal for dealers to take reasonable non-refundable deposits as liquidated damages given a signed contract. Sometimes I like to play armchair lawyer too, but when there's already analysis by actual lawyers, I would choose to believe that instead.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Sometimes I like to play armchair lawyer too, but when there's already analysis by actual lawyers, I would choose to believe that instead.

Lawyers too can be biased, though, or have conflict of interests such as stock ownership. Would prefer a completely neutral legal opinion compared to that of people vested in Tesla in some manner.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Lawyers too can be biased, though, or have conflict of interests such as stock ownership. Would prefer a completely neutral legal opinion compared to that of people vested in Tesla in some manner.

The article I cite is from a consumer siding group not affiliated with Tesla or any automaker at all. And unlike other auto publications, they don't take any advertising revenue from automakers. In fact, Consumer Reports have come out and criticized Tesla quite strongly on multiple occasions.
Be Careful When Leaving A Vehicle Deposit | There Is No Automatic Right To A Refund - Consumer Reports News

The second reference given in that article is also consumer siding law group (they point out specific scenarios where you can get the money back despite what the contract may say). But it's very clear that it's not illegal in general for dealers to keep such deposits, presuming they follow the caveats (amount as liquidated damages is not excessive, no other deception).
Games Dealers Play: Refusing to Refund the Deposit

 

[Surfer]

Update! Tesla completely resolved the issue to my 100% satisfaction. Thank you for all the posts and helpful info and even the counter opinions. Mahalo!

 

[croman]

Lots of law on liquidated damages clauses. They are usually frowned upon but Tesla could easily justify $2500 based on the fact these are mostly custom cars and they would have to discount the car to sell it to another person and they invested parts/labor into making it.

Honestly, it sounds like a moot point. There's the law and then there is reality. Tesla clearly saw reality or at least a business practicality (though @Surfer more details on what Tesla did to accommodate you would likely help future buyers).

 

[oktane]

Update! Tesla completely resolved the issue to my 100% satisfaction. Thank you for all the posts and helpful info and even the counter opinions. Mahalo!

That's what I thought. Easier for them to cave and make you happy then keep your deposit and lose in court. It would also be a PR nightmare, and yes they would lose. Even showing up at court has got to be worth $2500 for them.

Glad that this issue is resolved, however.

 

[timvracer]

This has nothing to do with them losing in court, because they wouldn't.
Please, this in no way supports "what you thought". There would be no PR nightmare, not even a blip. It's small claims for crying out loud.

But I can say this does help put in perspective for me all your ranting about AP2.

Based on all I read on this board, Tesla has a strong track record of trying to provide a positive customer experience and resolve customer issues, especially with delivery (notwithstanding a few independent service centers that have shown to suck).

That's what I thought. Easier for them to cave and make you happy then keep your deposit and lose in court. It would also be a PR nightmare, and yes they would lose. Even showing up at court has got to be worth $2500 for them.

Glad that this issue is resolved, however.

 

[oktane]

This has nothing to do with them losing in court, because they wouldn't.
Please, this in no way supports "what you thought". There would be no PR nightmare, not even a blip. It's small claims for crying out loud.

But I can say this does help put in perspective for me all your ranting about AP2.

Based on all I read on this board, Tesla has a strong track record of trying to provide a positive customer experience and resolve customer issues, especially with delivery (notwithstanding a few independent service centers that have shown to suck).

Yeah, except for stealing our money and fraud. Excellent customer service indeed. This completely supports what I thought. They caved in because it made financial sense for them to do so, not out of the kindness of their hearts. losing in court would set a bad precedent for them. I suspect model three orders will not have the same clause, because there will be pitchforks otherwise if someone making less than $100,000 per year doesn't get their money back.