-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Daimler busted ruining a Tesla Model X?
- Thread starter Adm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Daimler Germany Tesla Inc.
Daimler breached the agreement and paid a penalty. All seems contractually above board. Now if the penalty clause isn't high enough to cover the consequential losses, then subsequent agreements will need to be-reworded with a "Do not disassemble / reassemble" clause or bigger penalties. These are big companies entering in to commercial contracts.
If there was a more serious breach of ethics it was Sixt's actions and how they then pushed the consequential losses down through to the Model X's owner. (But then again Sixt and the owner both entered a commercial agreement, and the cars owner did receive payment and the penalties.)
Let's assume instead Daimler had bought the car. What do you think would have happened to it after they'd finished it? It would go straight to auction, and some poor soul would have ended up with it not knowing about it's past.
So the only ethical way to do this would be to scrap cars after testing, or have some sort of "test vehicle" register.
I still think this is somewhat of a non-story. If it had been an Audi Q7 bought originally by Sixt themselves and rented out to Tesla we'd have never even heard about it. (After all the big rental firms make profits on some breaches and lose on others, it will be baked into their business model).
Anyway someone should send this story to Jalopnik, it's got to be one of the better rental car abuse stories:
https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-worst-abuse-youve-put-your-rental-cars-throug-1818486660
Though I am still chuckling about the guy that reversed his rental into the sea to intentionally fill the trunk with sea water!
Got to disagree on this one.
If I'm going to hold Tesla to a high standard, I'll have to do the same here. Just because you can get away with it or pay your way out of it, doesn't mean something is ethical. Seems to me Daimler did a bad one here.
Oh yeah they pulled a fast one on Sixt. But I doubt Daimler knew it was going to be sub contracted out to a mom & pop rental firm.
Sixt seem the least ethical in all of this if I'm honest.
I agree Sixt also played a role and it is possible they didn't pass on the limitations the mom & pop operation set on the car to their big, important customer.
Sixt will also be a huge customer of Daimler. (Both on traditional rental cars they buy but also contract hire fleet stuff).
The losses involved in this one Model X are a rounding error between the two companies overall transactions.
Personally I'd say this was an example of "Don't chalk up to malice, that which can be as easily attributed to incompetence". It's likely this all just fell through the cracks when you are dealing with 000's of vehicle rentals a day.
Sixt likely had a request for the specific car, didn't have one on fleet, did some googling found the Mom + Pop rental firm, and no more was thought about it.
(P.S. I do have some sympathy for the Model X's owners, and it's a shame this has happened, but the way it's being painted as some massive conspiracy by Daimler is likely untrue.)
The losses involved in this one Model X are a rounding error between the two companies overall transactions.
Personally I'd say this was an example of "Don't chalk up to malice, that which can be as easily attributed to incompetence". It's likely this all just fell through the cracks when you are dealing with 000's of vehicle rentals a day.
Sixt likely had a request for the specific car, didn't have one on fleet, did some googling found the Mom + Pop rental firm, and no more was thought about it.
(P.S. I do have some sympathy for the Model X's owners, and it's a shame this has happened, but the way it's being painted as some massive conspiracy by Daimler is likely untrue.)
This just isn't an excuse. Once the circs were discovered, they should have offered to buy the car. Daimler, if Sixt was unwilling.
In fact, they should do that now.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
That's an odd view of the law you have. Breaching a contract such that it triggered a damage clause is not contractually above board -- that's why it's called a "breach" which means "an act of breaking or failing to observe a law, agreement, or code of conduct."
I never read the article or the contract itself, but if the damages for a breach are a ceiling, rather than a floor, I would be surprised.
I'm actually appauled that anyone would think it's acceptable to do this to someone else's car, be it leased, rented or owned by an individual or a corporation. And if there's a problem with the car and someone gets hurt as a result? Wonder how MB would feel if all of their loaner cars were treated this way. Just leave them a note saying oops sorry must have been parked wrong, sure you'll put it through your insurance and be fine with it. Have to wonder how they treat customer repairs in their shops with people working there like this and having this attitude...if we break it, oh well just hand it over to insurance.
And no way would a rental group agree to rent their cars out to be pushed to it's limits and/or taken apart and rebuilt. Hard to have respect for someone/company that abuses someone else's property.
And no way would a rental group agree to rent their cars out to be pushed to it's limits and/or taken apart and rebuilt. Hard to have respect for someone/company that abuses someone else's property.
This was quoted in the Jalopnik article:
"A Daimler representative declined to comment on this particular rented Tesla when Jalopnik reached out to the company for comment on this story, and also reiterated that renting test cars is a standard practice in the industry:
· Renting vehicles for comparison purposes is a common procedure in the automotive industry
· In case the rental vehicles are damaged in the course of the rental period, the normal insurance procedure is started and a claim settlement is made"
If you took someone's property and damaged it like they did, knowing there was a good likelihood it would be damaged, do insurance companies pay out of this kind of stuff or would that be considered fraud if you knew what you were doing and put in a claim? Sounds from quotes from them that this is something they do all the time and insurance claims are normally filed.
"A Daimler representative declined to comment on this particular rented Tesla when Jalopnik reached out to the company for comment on this story, and also reiterated that renting test cars is a standard practice in the industry:
· Renting vehicles for comparison purposes is a common procedure in the automotive industry
· In case the rental vehicles are damaged in the course of the rental period, the normal insurance procedure is started and a claim settlement is made"
If you took someone's property and damaged it like they did, knowing there was a good likelihood it would be damaged, do insurance companies pay out of this kind of stuff or would that be considered fraud if you knew what you were doing and put in a claim? Sounds from quotes from them that this is something they do all the time and insurance claims are normally filed.
Quartz article describes more of the damage done to the vehicle: How Mercedes got caught trashing a rental Tesla Model X
Yep, so it seems they were not only unethical about taking it apart, they were also incompetent in how they took it apart and put it back together.
AustinPowers
Total Smeghead
The more I read about this the more I am confirmed in that my suspicions about Daimler are true. That they are totally incompetent when it comes to BEVs. They might have engineers who can design and build great ICEs (even though I still much prefer the Mercs of old to the current ones), but when it comes to BEVs I don't expect anything from them and would never consider one of their future offerings.
They should look at their German competition to see how it's done. An e-Golf is no Model 3, or S or X, yet it's a rock solid BEV. As is the i3. Or take a look at foreign ones like the Leaf, the Zoe, the Ioniq, the Ampera-e/Bolt, all of which are great in their own right. Why is Daimler so incompetent as to not being able to at least offer something like that form their Mercedes brand?
They should look at their German competition to see how it's done. An e-Golf is no Model 3, or S or X, yet it's a rock solid BEV. As is the i3. Or take a look at foreign ones like the Leaf, the Zoe, the Ioniq, the Ampera-e/Bolt, all of which are great in their own right. Why is Daimler so incompetent as to not being able to at least offer something like that form their Mercedes brand?
gjunky
Trifecta: Solar and both cars are EVs
CL600
Member
Last May I mulled over buying a pre-owned 12 cylinder Mercedes coupé, my dream car for many years. The V12 was like new and in private hands of someone high up in the Daimler organization. The negotiations were tough, and in August I wrote him I was considering buying a Tesla instead, but that it was a hard decision since there were so many opinions. His answer was short:
„Totaler Schwachsinn, das ganze ELEKTRO !!!“
(total crap, all of EV !!!)
It is certainly not representative for all of Daimler nowadays, but it might still be the general consensus in a large part of the company.
How did the saying go? Old masters are rarely wrong when they say something is possible, but usually always wrong when they say something is impossible. This reminds me of that.
The people into cars know a lot of what is possible, but it is really hard to dismiss a lifetime of evidence and experience into what you believe is impossible (or bad).
Yet, it is so easily the wrong thing to do.
I think there is a lesson for all of us here. When old, embrace everything new as possible and great to avoid this sin.
They are probable dying to rent a Tesla truck to dismantle and find out how to double their eFuso range
For me they are unethical without a shadow of a doubt. If they had apologized and compensated the owners I would have believed a mid-level management mistake. But their silence is proof of an unethical culture all the way to the top.
For me they are unethical without a shadow of a doubt. If they had apologized and compensated the owners I would have believed a mid-level management mistake. But their silence is proof of an unethical culture all the way to the top.
Similar threads
