-
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.
Well, if you care about having a pristine car, then don't let it be hired as a rental fleet car. Their car was damaged and Sixt compensated them. That's normal business for a car rental firm. Apparently they would like to squeeze more money out of this incident, though.
As to "breach of contract" issues, I doubt that their contract with Sixt gives them the right to track and to disclose to the public the locations where the car was taken. This couple may very well find itself in trouble for a violation of data protection laws.
As to "breach of contract" issues, I doubt that their contract with Sixt gives them the right to track and to disclose to the public the locations where the car was taken. This couple may very well find itself in trouble for a violation of data protection laws.
You obviously didn't read what happened to them. They have been contacted by Sixt to have their car rented for by a company for a show-like performances with limited mileage. You could say it was the perfect deal: limited usage in a nearby area by a significant customer. All was written in a document delivered by Sixt. What can ask you for? Also all of this was controlled by a Spiegel journalist.
As for not rented a pristine car, that's their main business to do this! They have three Teslas and a Zoé. Elektromotron e.K. - Unsere Fahrzeuge What do expect? That a couple use all the cars for certain time before renting them? Really, these arguments...
As for the total price asked, part is bargaining (Sixt will at all costs, so to say, bargain in the opposite side of the argument, obviously), part is simply the reflection of what happened: damages, repaired and permanent, lost revenue, time spent on the whole affair (four hours for the inspection only and dozen of four in litigation, etc.) and so on.
The bottom line is that Daimler lied, and maybe also Sixt but not sure of the extent of it, abused the car and were very conscious of all of that and finally being so arrogant and feeling so immune of consequences to leave a note of cynicism in the glove box.
Of course, if it appears that some elements of that is untrue, then I can perfectly admit that I was wrong. But I need proof.
As for not rented a pristine car, that's their main business to do this! They have three Teslas and a Zoé. Elektromotron e.K. - Unsere Fahrzeuge What do expect? That a couple use all the cars for certain time before renting them? Really, these arguments...
As for the total price asked, part is bargaining (Sixt will at all costs, so to say, bargain in the opposite side of the argument, obviously), part is simply the reflection of what happened: damages, repaired and permanent, lost revenue, time spent on the whole affair (four hours for the inspection only and dozen of four in litigation, etc.) and so on.
The bottom line is that Daimler lied, and maybe also Sixt but not sure of the extent of it, abused the car and were very conscious of all of that and finally being so arrogant and feeling so immune of consequences to leave a note of cynicism in the glove box.
Of course, if it appears that some elements of that is untrue, then I can perfectly admit that I was wrong. But I need proof.
gg_got_a_tesla
Model S: VIN 65513, Model 3: VIN 1913
Son and I were catching up on The Flash, Season 4 and saw the following - reminded me of this thread 
Tesla Model X on The Flash - Streamable
Tesla Model X on The Flash - Streamable
I have read the information that's available online. As far as I understand what happened there is no contract between Daimler and the owners of the Tesla. They had no direct contact with a representative of Daimler either. Additionally, the journalist has absolutely no insight into what was contractually agreed between Daimler and Sixt.
As to the bold claim of "Daimler lied", what do you think what Sixt believes will happen when Daimler asks them for Model x of Brand Y for seven weeks? That Daimler has run out of cars for general use? Most likely it happens all the time and when the rental car is returned in a thrashed state they just bill Daimler for the damage (with an additional profit, I guess). They don't care about that as cars are just a commodity for them. Now, this time Sixt didn't have the required car available so they used the owners of the Tesla as a subcontractor. They in turn have to settle their grievances with Sixt.
Again, if you care about your car you don't let it to a huge rental fleet operator ( + a company that's well known for its aggressive business tactics).
Anyone who believes that not every single carmaker (including Tesla) does this regularly when they plan to develop/release a new model with existing competition is a complete fool.
The only difference here is that someone made a Tesla-Clickbait article out of it.
It`s a competitive market and manufacturers will always go to great lengths to gain an advantage. Exactly knowing what the competition does is a crucial part of that.
The only difference here is that someone made a Tesla-Clickbait article out of it.
It`s a competitive market and manufacturers will always go to great lengths to gain an advantage. Exactly knowing what the competition does is a crucial part of that.
The only difference is other car manufacturers pay for their cars, not rent them and then return them.
We just don't know this.
TBH if the shoe had been on the other foot and Tesla had rented a car to test rather than buy it, most here would be applauding Tesla's cost control measures.
As @Just a Reader says, it's a commodity item. Millions of cars are sold every year, one mass produced car being damaged is completely meh.
Click bait that wouldn't have been an issue if it had been a comparably priced 911 that got damaged.
BS. This is a Tesla forum so Tesla news will be discussed. If the same thing happened to a Porsche, it would be all over the Porsche forums. If Tesla did the same, the vast majority of people here would not be cool with someone's personal property being rented under false pretenses, and then dis/reassembled without the permission of the owner.
Sorry the personal property thing is a complete smokescreen.
Daimler hired a car from Sixt.
Fire the anger at them.
In North America, you cannot disassemble a car you rent. Regardless if its from an individual or a corporation.
And?
Daimler paid Sixt. Sixt haven't sued Daimler.
If the private owners want to sue Sixt, fine I wish them all the luck in the world, but at the end of the day it's nothing to do with either Tesla or Daimler.
Meanwhile back in the real world when running a business, as the owners of the Model X in question were doing, you have to face the facts that deals go bad.
99 times out of 100 you'll be fine, but the one shipstorm must be covered by the profits of the 99
I rent properties, both commercial and domestic. It's a business, I treat it as such.
If you get precious over it, and don't take this into account you will eventually come to a cropper.
The one true lesson here is that for individuals going into such arrangements via Turo and AirBnB do indeed have risks.
Let us leave it at that.
Only if you have more days than those where where you are behind on capital cost Vs rental income and incidentals
Daimler and Sixt do many millions of € worth of business each year. This business will be governed by a special agreement between the companies. You do not know what this contract allows Daimler to do.
TaoJones
Beyond Driven
And what vehicles is Tesla likely to buy and disassemble?
Likely a *very* short list.
Maybe a Kenworth, out of curiosity. They had to build that first Semi on top of something, right?
Darn that being out in front thing.
Likely a *very* short list.
Maybe a Kenworth, out of curiosity. They had to build that first Semi on top of something, right?
Darn that being out in front thing.
I agree with @smac that this thing has escalated for non-business reasons. "A very nice couple" has nothing to do with business.
That said, some sympathy must fall on the small business vs. the large corporations in question, the former is arguably in a weaker position and deserves some leeway the latter do not. That's the Euro-Socialist way.
We can expect better from the big guys and expect fairer for the small guys. In that sense, I'm directing a carefully orchestrated finger at Sixt and/or Daimler depending on what their internal contract/arrangement/information said about this incident.
Either of the big parties should have known better, we are just not quite sure which one is to blame more. If Daimler had a deal with Sixt to do all this a-okay and didn't know it was a third-party car, then Sixt is to blame and should never have given a third-party car to them. If Daimler didn't have clearance or they knew it was a third-party car, then they are to blame.
That said, some sympathy must fall on the small business vs. the large corporations in question, the former is arguably in a weaker position and deserves some leeway the latter do not. That's the Euro-Socialist way.
We can expect better from the big guys and expect fairer for the small guys. In that sense, I'm directing a carefully orchestrated finger at Sixt and/or Daimler depending on what their internal contract/arrangement/information said about this incident.
Either of the big parties should have known better, we are just not quite sure which one is to blame more. If Daimler had a deal with Sixt to do all this a-okay and didn't know it was a third-party car, then Sixt is to blame and should never have given a third-party car to them. If Daimler didn't have clearance or they knew it was a third-party car, then they are to blame.
Similar threads
