They could have offered that but they did not. They refused to talk about the incorrect Monroney-Sticker at all. That's the issue. They will not admit that something about this transaction did not process correctly and will not work with me to rectify the situation. Again, I understand that I didn't pay for it and I don't deserve it for free and blablabla. I want Tesla to figure this stuff out because it has implications on me selling the car and on everything moving forward with features that are no longer physical but software only. There have to be rules.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
EAP on window sticker but I didn’t pay for it, it worked initially and then didn’t
- Thread starter FM1988
- Start date
- Status
They could have offered that but they did not. They refused to talk about the incorrect Monroney-Sticker at all. That's the issue. They will not admit that something about this transaction did not process correctly and will not work with me to rectify the situation. Again, I understand that I didn't pay for it and I don't deserve it for free and blablabla. I want Tesla to figure this stuff out because it has implications on me selling the car and on everything moving forward with features that are no longer physical but software only. There have to be rules.
You are contradicting yourself:
Cannot co-exist with:
You KNEW you were not buying EAP. Tesla KNEW they were not selling you EAP. You both mutually agreed to modify the vehicle from the as shipped configuration (sticker). Everything processed correctly.
Wait, what? The issue is selling your car, not you missing the feature? Tell the buyer is does not have EAP. Problem solved. Do you think Tesla send out new stickers for everyone who updates to FSD after the fact?
Tesla doesn't seem to follow the rules. My monroney sticker didn't come close to matching the actual car configuration. The VIN on it was correct and matched my car's VIN but the sticker said the car was Multicoat Red (my car is Midnight Silver) and various options I ordered (and received) were not listed on the sticker.
Bottom line, I received the car exactly as I ordered it and exactly as spelled out on my MVPA but the monroney sticker was wrong in so many ways it was laughable. I suspect Tesla delivering a car like that was probably technically not legal (based on my limited knowledge of monroney stickers and the federal mandate to have them) but I really didn't (don't) care.
Mike
Last edited:
So to say that Tesla "stole" anything from you is a far fetched. -- the feature was not in your order, and you never paid for it.
You got a 9 month preview of a feature that you really enjoyed. -- nice of tesla to give you a free preview.
Now you have a choice -- pony up and pay for it, or go without it ..
you can ask for a deal but i dont see how they are obligated to give you one. -- doesn't hurt to ask though.
--- In otherindustries this doesn't fly, but in the car industry i think it does -- if this was real estate and you rented an apt for 9 months for a certain price, then that becomes the defacto price. -- keeps landlords from doing bait and switches to get around rent control.
You got a 9 month preview of a feature that you really enjoyed. -- nice of tesla to give you a free preview.
Now you have a choice -- pony up and pay for it, or go without it ..
you can ask for a deal but i dont see how they are obligated to give you one. -- doesn't hurt to ask though.
--- In otherindustries this doesn't fly, but in the car industry i think it does -- if this was real estate and you rented an apt for 9 months for a certain price, then that becomes the defacto price. -- keeps landlords from doing bait and switches to get around rent control.
You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree. I never agreed to have Tesla modify the vehicle. This is going to go around in circles to an infinite extent until someone who is legally literate can state whether the Monroney-Sticker has any legal meaning for cars as Tesla.
I will agree that I doubt I would receive a new sticker if I pay for a feature after I have purchased the vehicle. There has got to be a status quo when you pick up the vehicle that documents what is in it. Surely, that is not unreasonable, even to you.
We are obviously facing a new situation where features that had to be selected during the purchasing process are now available after the vehicle is delivered. Doesn't that merit a whole new approach to documenting what the vehicle is equipped with? What if you get a KBB Report on the vehicle? Would that include options purchased during ownership?
I stated I was willing to pay for the AP1 feature, based on the input I have received here. I am changing my statements based on the information provided. All you seem to get enjoyment out of is discrediting my claim instead of thinking about the bigger picture. To each their own.
I can feel a little for @FM1988 because don't forget.
His car had some issues. He could have rejected it. But he saw he was getting EAP and might of said, hey I'll look the other way on these issues and NOT return the car since they errored (for what ever reason) to give me EAP (backed up by Sticker). If he didn't have that EAP he may have rejected or returned it for a better sample. And as I mentioned he might have missed out on the sale price.
Basically he was a bit mislead by an error. He didn't question why, he probably knew he could lose it, maybe he optimistically thought it was in exchange for waiting through repairs. But he might have made some choices differently based on the error.
I think the least they could do is sell EAP or AP at discount (either purchase price or sale price, not the post jacked up EAP price) for their misleading errors. At least buy what was on the Sticker and he'd been driving for 9 months.
I also think they could have given him a heads up via email and had given him opportunity to discuss and maybe work out a deal. In the end both sides would win.
His car had some issues. He could have rejected it. But he saw he was getting EAP and might of said, hey I'll look the other way on these issues and NOT return the car since they errored (for what ever reason) to give me EAP (backed up by Sticker). If he didn't have that EAP he may have rejected or returned it for a better sample. And as I mentioned he might have missed out on the sale price.
Basically he was a bit mislead by an error. He didn't question why, he probably knew he could lose it, maybe he optimistically thought it was in exchange for waiting through repairs. But he might have made some choices differently based on the error.
I think the least they could do is sell EAP or AP at discount (either purchase price or sale price, not the post jacked up EAP price) for their misleading errors. At least buy what was on the Sticker and he'd been driving for 9 months.
I also think they could have given him a heads up via email and had given him opportunity to discuss and maybe work out a deal. In the end both sides would win.
Thanks! That's all I would have asked them to do and everything would have been fine and dandy.
This is good solid information to go on. If you think you can win, it will be worth it from a dollar perspective. I doubt a lawyer letter alone will simply gift you something that wasn't paid, however, I have seen crazier things happen in the law world just to avoid the court fees. It's a big gamble for you. If you win, you are likely going to be gagged and not let us know so ultimately this is your private decision. The consensus here is no one is entitled to something they didn't pay for.
Whatever happens, I hope this doesn't spoil your Tesla ownership. Try not to worry so much about a sense of entitlement and enjoy your car. It's fantastic even without AP.
I got two Monroney Stickers with my purchase. One for the "Hardware" Only. And one with Software Options Added.
EAP, FSD and Performance (Stealth) was not on the hardware sticker.
I tend to agree with the OP on this. I’ve bought lots of cars and many times the car comes with stuff I didn’t even know about but it was on the sticker. Also many times you pay less than what the sticker says. The dealer doesn’t come back later and say “oh, we meant to charge you more for that car because it has the seat heaters but we forgot... so we need to remove the seat heaters now”.
Think of it this way. You go to the store to buy a bag of 12 apples. When you get there you notice the bag of apples says 14 apples are inside and it has a price pre-printed on the bag for $7, even though it’s sitting in a bin that says $6 which is what you expected to pay for the bag of 12 apples. You go check out and sure enough it rings up $6. The store doesn’t later tell you they are taking two of your apples back.
Think of it this way. You go to the store to buy a bag of 12 apples. When you get there you notice the bag of apples says 14 apples are inside and it has a price pre-printed on the bag for $7, even though it’s sitting in a bin that says $6 which is what you expected to pay for the bag of 12 apples. You go check out and sure enough it rings up $6. The store doesn’t later tell you they are taking two of your apples back.
The only thing I can't get over is that I literally do not have a simple form of cruise control. I guess if that were available I might just say screw it, I will drive myself like I always have. But not even basic cruise control? Come on! So the only way to get that back is in the AP1 package and I have no other choice but to cough up the cash. Again, this is part of their back and forth with options and features and all the changes they have made. Is there any car, even at the lowest price point you can buy in the US without cruise control?
And in the OP's case, a week later the store sneaks into his house and took 2 apples out of the frig without telling him.
Here's a better analogy. You go online and place an order for a bag of 12 apples.
You show up, pay for your 12 apples but the store gives you 14.
They later take their 2 apples back.
Except they can’t. Once the transaction is completed and they sell me the 14 apples they are legally mine.
For me Tesla would either have to give me the EAP back or agree on a full refund of the entire car as I may have continued with the purchase knowing I would have EAP despite other issues that would have caused me to cancel the transaction.
That is certainly not true in most states.
The same common contract laws that would protect you from a seller only putting 10 apples in a 12 apple bag, will also protect them if a mistake is made.
There are entire books written on mistakes in contract law. Unless the op can prove that Tesla acted in bad faith, he's going to have a hell of a time getting anything here.
huangm777
Member
I find this interesting because it seems that morality, legality, and propriety (in this context, what one would consider good customer service) are all out of sync here. It’s probably why this thread is so long, because it’s a great example of how right and wrong can be harder to apply in real life. It resembles the good posts on Reddit’s r/AmITheAsshole forum.
I enjoy this kind of casuistry so prepare for a long post!
Morally, OP is not entitled to what he didn’t pay for. He’s already acknowledged this. That he got EAP despite not ordering it is a mistake on Tesla’s part, and they are entitled to remove it once they are aware of the mistake. These are the basics. In some ways it really is like receiving the wrong change from a cashier, or money mistakenly deposited in a bank account. The best thing to do would be to let the cashier know and give back the difference.
There are two problems that complicate this, though:
1.) The sticker said it had EAP, even though the bill of sale didn’t. There seems to be some legal ambiguity about whether the sticker itself is binding. This is where the legality may not match up with the morality exactly, though the principle behind the law is morally sound: what you see on the sticker ought to be what you get. That was the purpose of the sticker to begin with, and when the features don’t match, it’s understandable that the customer would believe that he might be entitled to it after all. It might not technically violate the law, but it seems to violate its spirit.
2.) The feature was disabled without warning, and it’s a feature that affects safety. Yes one can say that you shouldn’t depend on a feature you didn’t pay for, but it would be the decent thing to do to give the driver a heads up that the feature was being disabled. Especially if it’s a safety-affecting one. This seems negligent to some degree, even if it wasn’t legally required. To me this shows less than ideal “propriety” (customer service), and it might even be a little morally questionable too. Especially when the free trial was unwritten and lengthy. Tesla ought to understand this can create unreasonable expectations, because we’re all human.
Both sides had ideal responsibilities that they didn’t fulfill. Ideally, OP should have let Tesla know right away that he didn’t order EAP and that it would be ok if they disabled it, and not used the feature thereafter. But it’s also Tesla’s responsibility to ensure that this situation would never come up. A purchase should be transparent, and the sticker should reflect reality (and it might even be illegal that it doesn’t).
There’s also the problem of scale: it’s one thing to realize you got $0.39 in change more; it’s another when it’s $10,000 in your favor at the bank. And in terms of monetary value, this is far closer to the latter. But then this isn’t about wheels, or brakes, or something physical; this is about a software switch for capabilities already present. For Tesla, it’s a sunk cost.
To use the Reddit terminology: ESH (everyone sucks here). OP should have let them know they gave him more than he paid for and not used EAP so much he became dependent on it. But the best thing Tesla should have done, given the sticker description, the length of the “trial,” and it’s safety consequences, is cut him some slack. It’s probably a bridge too far to just give him an expensive feature for free, especially with their thin margins. But they shouldn’t have turned it off without warning. And the best service would give him a reduced price at least for the trouble and confusion. They probably don’t have to legally or technically. But it’d be better service wise and even morally if they did.
Fascinating case. I hope it all gets resolved well, OP.
I enjoy this kind of casuistry so prepare for a long post!
Morally, OP is not entitled to what he didn’t pay for. He’s already acknowledged this. That he got EAP despite not ordering it is a mistake on Tesla’s part, and they are entitled to remove it once they are aware of the mistake. These are the basics. In some ways it really is like receiving the wrong change from a cashier, or money mistakenly deposited in a bank account. The best thing to do would be to let the cashier know and give back the difference.
There are two problems that complicate this, though:
1.) The sticker said it had EAP, even though the bill of sale didn’t. There seems to be some legal ambiguity about whether the sticker itself is binding. This is where the legality may not match up with the morality exactly, though the principle behind the law is morally sound: what you see on the sticker ought to be what you get. That was the purpose of the sticker to begin with, and when the features don’t match, it’s understandable that the customer would believe that he might be entitled to it after all. It might not technically violate the law, but it seems to violate its spirit.
2.) The feature was disabled without warning, and it’s a feature that affects safety. Yes one can say that you shouldn’t depend on a feature you didn’t pay for, but it would be the decent thing to do to give the driver a heads up that the feature was being disabled. Especially if it’s a safety-affecting one. This seems negligent to some degree, even if it wasn’t legally required. To me this shows less than ideal “propriety” (customer service), and it might even be a little morally questionable too. Especially when the free trial was unwritten and lengthy. Tesla ought to understand this can create unreasonable expectations, because we’re all human.
Both sides had ideal responsibilities that they didn’t fulfill. Ideally, OP should have let Tesla know right away that he didn’t order EAP and that it would be ok if they disabled it, and not used the feature thereafter. But it’s also Tesla’s responsibility to ensure that this situation would never come up. A purchase should be transparent, and the sticker should reflect reality (and it might even be illegal that it doesn’t).
There’s also the problem of scale: it’s one thing to realize you got $0.39 in change more; it’s another when it’s $10,000 in your favor at the bank. And in terms of monetary value, this is far closer to the latter. But then this isn’t about wheels, or brakes, or something physical; this is about a software switch for capabilities already present. For Tesla, it’s a sunk cost.
To use the Reddit terminology: ESH (everyone sucks here). OP should have let them know they gave him more than he paid for and not used EAP so much he became dependent on it. But the best thing Tesla should have done, given the sticker description, the length of the “trial,” and it’s safety consequences, is cut him some slack. It’s probably a bridge too far to just give him an expensive feature for free, especially with their thin margins. But they shouldn’t have turned it off without warning. And the best service would give him a reduced price at least for the trouble and confusion. They probably don’t have to legally or technically. But it’d be better service wise and even morally if they did.
Fascinating case. I hope it all gets resolved well, OP.
This is the first post I read in the thread and don't feel the need to go through any of the previous 6 pages. Thank you for an awesome TL;DR.
The OP knew they did not pay for EAP. If the sticker is the primary legal document, the OP engaged in theft.
Autosteer is not guaranteed to engage. It is the driver's responsibility to verify operation. The only safety issue is assuming the car is in a certain mode without verifying it.
Well put! I can definitely sign off on the logic and the arguments. Thanks for putting real thought into it. Seems like a reasonable view point with some common sense behind it.
- Status
