EAP on window sticker but I didn’t pay for it, it worked initially and then didn’t

[holmgang]

The window sticker isn't a binding agreement

There is (to my knowledge) nothing legally binding about the Monroney.

Now wait a minute. While I agree in principal that one is not entitled to that which one did not pay for me.... the Monroney sticker is something else entirely.

It is not merely a convention. It is a legally-binding requirement, as codified in the US code, title 15 sec 28
[USC02] 15 USC Ch. 28: DISCLOSURE OF AUTOMOBILE INFORMATION

Every manufacturer of new automobiles distributed in commerce shall... securely affix to the windshield...a label on which such manufacturer shall endorse clearly, distinctly and legibly true and correct entries disclosing the following information concerning such automobile—

..the retail delivered price suggested by the manufacturer for each accessory or item of optional equipment, *physically attached to such automobile at the time of its delivery...
​

So while the bill of sale did not match the sticker, that is the dealership's responsibility, and does not obviate the need for the correctness of the sticker.

From a legal point of view, the selling entity (=Tesla) is liable to be penalized up to $1000 for this.
From a practical point of view, Tesla should either offer customer that feature at a discount (say, the equivalent of their $1000 fine); or, at this junction and under these circumstances, given that it occurs no additional cost*, just provide that software for free.

*the pedant will hang on the word 'physically', but this law being 60 years old (though later amended) didnt take into account software, but any reasonable person will argue the software counts as optional equipment in the spirit of this law.
**i work in software, i know the software has value, even if it incurs no incremental cost to deploy. but in this example its simply a matter of good customer practice.

 

[jmaddr]

They change things on the window sticker all the time. Swapping wheels, adding trim. You've seen those "side window stickers" when they do significant upgrades, right? I think you could have a valid point which would be that they didn't provide that second window sticker...but even then it's legally weak as the Bill of Sale is what you signed, that's the legal agreement. I'll bet you paid less than what it says on that sticker, right? If you paid what it says on the sticker, then absolutely you have a legal argument. If you paid less and they detail why in a bill of sale...

 

[mongo]

Now wait a minute. While I agree in principal that one is not entitled to that which one did not pay for me.... the Monroney sticker is something else entirely.

It is not merely a convention. It is a legally-binding requirement, as codified in the US code, title 15 sec 28
[USC02] 15 USC Ch. 28: DISCLOSURE OF AUTOMOBILE INFORMATION

Every manufacturer of new automobiles distributed in commerce shall... securely affix to the windshield...a label on which such manufacturer shall endorse clearly, distinctly and legibly true and correct entries disclosing the following information concerning such automobile—

..the retail delivered price suggested by the manufacturer for each accessory or item of optional equipment, *physically attached to such automobile at the time of its delivery...
​

So while the bill of sale did not match the sticker, that is the dealership's responsibility, and does not obviate the need for the correctness of the sticker.

From a legal point of view, the selling entity (=Tesla) is liable to be penalized up to $1000 for this.
From a practical point of view, Tesla should either offer customer that feature at a discount (say, the equivalent of their $1000 fine); or, at this junction and under these circumstances, given that it occurs no additional cost*, just provide that software for free.

*the pedant will hang on the word 'physically', but this law being 60 years old (though later amended) didnt take into account software, but any reasonable person will argue the software counts as optional equipment in the spirit of this law.
**i work in software, i know the software has value, even if it incurs no incremental cost to deploy. but in this example its simply a matter of good customer practice.

A true pendant would first note that no one attaches it to the windshield.
* Edit: poor spelling on my part, apparently the actual text also says side window. Why windshield was chosen to be included in the snippet instead is beyond me.

Also disagree that a 'reasonable' person would equate software with physical.

Further, when the purchaser specifically does not want an option and the car is agreed to be de-contented, that case is different than if the sticker listed a paid for option that was not included.

 

[holmgang]

They change things on the window sticker all the time. Swapping wheels, adding trim. You've seen those "side window stickers" when they do significant upgrades, right? I think you could have a valid point which would be that they didn't provide that second window sticker...but even then it's legally weak as the Bill of Sale is what you signed, that's the legal agreement. I'll bet you paid less than what it says on that sticker, right? If you paid what it says on the sticker, then absolutely you have a legal argument. If you paid less and they detail why in a bill of sale...

Monroney sticker refers to items at time of delivery.

If dealer wants to sell additive stuff, that just goes onto the bill of sale. Extra wheels. Trucoat protection. whatever.

Presumbly, if things are swapped out, the details of the swap is in the bill of sale, to ensure a full custodial chain, e.g. "OEM 18" wheels replaced with 19" wheels for $500 surcharge"

otherwise, we just throw contracts law out the window. and the sticker is just as good as trash. but we know it isnt, since its literally law.

 

[holmgang]

A true pendant would first note that no one attaches it to the windshield.

Also disagree that a 'reasonable' person would equate software with physical.

Further, when the purchaser specifically does not want an option and the car is agreed to be de-contented, that case is different than if the sticker listed a paid for option that was not included.

You might want to seek clarification frorm your school pedant master about the use of ellipses, which indicates omissions of text.
And if you had clicked on the provided link, you'd see the full text, defining placement of sticker as windshield OR side window.

And if you re-read the sentence, you'd see the emphasis is on the content of the car (the "accessory" or "equipment", which EAP/FSD is), not the manner of its constitution.

Unless the bill of sale explicitly lists the removal of the EAP/FSD feature, Tesla should still be liable for the veracity of the accompanying sticker.

Finally, I should add that a "true pendant" is something that one typically wear on one's neck.

 

[jmaddr]

I get it. I'm sorry you feel like they took something from you, I just don't see legal standing. Tesla is liable for the Bill of Sale that you signed. If you really want to take it to the next level, consult a lawyer instead of the internet.

How much does it cost to get Autopilot now? It was $2k when I got it but perhaps they charge more afterwards. You would need to make sure the lawyer fees are less than that price.

 

[holmgang]

I get it. I'm sorry you feel like they took something from you, I just don't see legal standing. Tesla is liable for the Bill of Sale that you signed. If you really want to take it to the next level, consult a lawyer instead of the internet.

How much does it cost to get Autopilot now? It was $2k when I got it but perhaps they charge more afterwards. You would need to make sure the lawyer fees are less than that price.

They didn't take anything from me. Monroney stickers don't even exist where I live. But people are saying those stickers have no legal basis (in the US, where OP bought his car), which is demonstrably false.

 

[jmaddr]

which is demonstrably false.

How do you come to this conclusion. Do you have prior rulings on the matter? Remember law is interpretive here in the US. An overriding principle is a document that two parties signed and is notorized trumps something created before that contract.

 

[mongo]

They didn't take anything from me. Monroney stickers don't even exist where I live. But people are saying those stickers have no legal basis (in the US, where OP bought his car), which is demonstrably false.

I think people are saying the sticker is superseeded by the bill of sale MPVA, not that it has no legal basis. Especially since the car is configurable pre delivery based on purchaser desires which was not a situation forseen at the time the law was written.


Can the delivery center reprint? Possibly not, unless that is a form of rerouting:

(c) Removal, alteration, or illegibility of required label

Any person who willfully removes, alters, or renders illegible any label affixed to a new automobile pursuant to section 1232 of this title, or any endorsement thereon, prior to the time that such automobile is delivered to the actual custody and possession of the ultimate purchaser of such new automobile, except where the manufacturer relabels the automobile in the event the same is rerouted, repurchased, or reacquired by the manufacturer of such automobile, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. Such removal, alteration, or rendering illegible with respect to each automobile shall constitute a separate offense.

If not alterable, OP would have had to buy EAP or wait for a custom build without it.

 

[holmgang]

How do you come to this conclusion. Do you have prior rulings on the matter? Remember law is interpretive here in the US. An overriding principle is a document that two parties signed and is notorized trumps something created before that contract.

Firstly, it exists in the actual US code of laws. It's prima facie. I/you/we dont need to prove its validity.

Secondly, my main and original contention is that Tesla is liable to supply an accurate sticker. Unless the items on that sticker is contradicted by the bill of sale that calls for the explicit removal of such things.

I very clearly said the OP is NOT entitled to the feature (I do suggest hes should be given it freely, or discounted, as a matter of goodwill).

The sales document do not obviate the sticker. Unless the sales document specifically refer to the sticker. Until then, those 2 things are separate.

 

[SSonnentag]

Monroney stickers specifically refer to equipment. Software is not a part of that. Software comes and goes.

 

[holmgang]

Monroney stickers specifically refer to equipment. Software is not a part of that. Software comes and goes.

Is Navigation not considered equipment, since it's powered by software? Or swiveling lights that's electronically actuated, not mechanically.

What's the purpose of software, if not to provide an actual function? Software are products. People build and refine and launch software products. Torque vectoring, anti-lock brakes, distance-based cruise control, etc, all of these are software, and theyre all vehicle features and "equipment".

Monroney was introduced in the 50s, when computers were still running punched cards. But it's pretty clear the intent of the sticker was to describe features and attributes of the vehicles being put for sale.

 

[mongo]

But it's pretty clear the intent of the sticker was to describe features and attributes of the vehicles being put for sale.

And to list and fix the prices of options so both the dealer and consumer were on the same page without hidden fees and upcharges. Dealer vs OEM, customer vs dealer.
Monroney sticker history and window sticker facts

 

[FM1988]

I get it. I'm sorry you feel like they took something from you, I just don't see legal standing. Tesla is liable for the Bill of Sale that you signed. If you really want to take it to the next level, consult a lawyer instead of the internet.

How much does it cost to get Autopilot now? It was $2k when I got it but perhaps they charge more afterwards. You would need to make sure the lawyer fees are less than that price.

If they give me the 2k price for Autopilot 1, no EAP, I will take it. Lawyer is going to charge about $750 just to look into it and send a letter to Tesla basically restating what has been said about the Monroney sticker. I have already provided all of those arguments to Tesla and they have declined. So if that first step of $750 out the window doesn't do anything I would have to take them to court, which would probably far exceed what it would cost to just pay the 2k.

 

[FM1988]

Now wait a minute. While I agree in principal that one is not entitled to that which one did not pay for me.... the Monroney sticker is something else entirely.

It is not merely a convention. It is a legally-binding requirement, as codified in the US code, title 15 sec 28
[USC02] 15 USC Ch. 28: DISCLOSURE OF AUTOMOBILE INFORMATION

Every manufacturer of new automobiles distributed in commerce shall... securely affix to the windshield...a label on which such manufacturer shall endorse clearly, distinctly and legibly true and correct entries disclosing the following information concerning such automobile—

..the retail delivered price suggested by the manufacturer for each accessory or item of optional equipment, *physically attached to such automobile at the time of its delivery...
​

So while the bill of sale did not match the sticker, that is the dealership's responsibility, and does not obviate the need for the correctness of the sticker.

From a legal point of view, the selling entity (=Tesla) is liable to be penalized up to $1000 for this.
From a practical point of view, Tesla should either offer customer that feature at a discount (say, the equivalent of their $1000 fine); or, at this junction and under these circumstances, given that it occurs no additional cost*, just provide that software for free.

*the pedant will hang on the word 'physically', but this law being 60 years old (though later amended) didnt take into account software, but any reasonable person will argue the software counts as optional equipment in the spirit of this law.
**i work in software, i know the software has value, even if it incurs no incremental cost to deploy. but in this example its simply a matter of good customer practice.

This is the information that I came across, too. If this is how the sticker is supposed to function and we just ignore it, why have it at all? I would have expected Tesla's service to handle the situation exactly as described.

All those comparisons to XM Radio are stupid as this isn't a driving feature and the details of the trial are completely clear when you get the vehicle. Had Tesla said "Please try the autopilot for 4 months and see if you want to buy after. Here are the terms and conditions. Please click "I agree" at the bottom" and had it not been on the Monroney sticker, I would have never said anything at all even if it had worked for longer than the trial period.

 

[ry-ballz]

This is the information that I came across, too. If this is how the sticker is supposed to function and we just ignore it, why have it at all? I would have expected Tesla's service to handle the situation exactly as described.

All those comparisons to XM Radio are stupid as this isn't a driving feature and the details of the trial are completely clear when you get the vehicle. Had Tesla said "Please try the autopilot for 4 months and see if you want to buy after. Here are the terms and conditions. Please click "I agree" at the bottom" and had it not been on the Monroney sticker, I would have never said anything at all even if it had worked for longer than the trial period.

Jesus Christ.
This is why we can't have nice things

 

[ry-ballz]

I hope Tesla makes you cover their legal fees

 

[dhrivnak]

Because it is now


I feel a little cheated by the whole thing because they just took it away no warning and people who are not early adopters now receive it for free in a cheaper vehicle. There was a mistake made and now I am asked to cover all the costs by myself without Tesla compromising one bit. Reading this it feels more like complaining about bad customer service

Sorry you feel this way and another way to look at it is to feel blessed by having a very long and detailed trial that many users would have loved. And you may be a able to still buy the base autopilot for $2000 as that not the full self driving is what the new cars come with.

 

[mongo]

If they give me the 2k price for Autopilot 1, no EAP, I will take it. Lawyer is going to charge about $750 just to look into it and send a letter to Tesla basically restating what has been said about the Monroney sticker. I have already provided all of those arguments to Tesla and they have declined. So if that first step of $750 out the window doesn't do anything I would have to take them to court, which would probably far exceed what it would cost to just pay the 2k.

If you want to enforce the sticker as the proper document (As opposed to the bill of sale/ MPVA with the options you wanted to pay for), then would not Tesla be withing their rights to charge you the original sticker price with the option (And possibly interest)?

 

[trm2]

Isn't the MVPA actually just an endorsement to the Moroney? I've never paid full sticker price for a car (including my Model S) has every new car transaction I've been part of been illegal?