-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Jaff
Active Member
scott jones
Member
For the record, I largely agree. I do not feel entitled to AWD, parking sensors, power folding mirrors, etc. These are all new features that were not even discussed at the time I purchased my car. I want to keep my Sig S and have no gripes about these features. Having said that, I would never consider purchasing another Sig. Not going to get into that here, though.
-production X res holder
-production X res holder
green1
Active Member
Considering the discussion in multiple threads, I'm sure I'm one of the ones being painted as a "fanboy". Nothing could be further from the truth. Read my posts in other areas, I criticize Tesla a lot, on all sorts of subjects, every time I see that they have done something wrong. Thing is, in this case they did everything right, and then even gave some features away for free as a bonus, it just doesn't get any better than that.
And for those wanting the price to go up. Should they raise the price every time they change anything? Who will buy the million dollar model S? No, technology as a rule gets better AND cheaper over time, that's the way this works. Sure Tesla needs to make a profit margin, but they also have to sell the product at a price people will pay, continual price increases could actually erode the amount of money they make. If they have managed to improve their cost structure, they SHOULD pass it on to consumers, even if that means that the guy who buys next week gets a better product for less money than the guy who bought today. Tesla already has a higher margin on the Model S than the industry average by quite a bit, there's no need to ratchet it up further just to make some previous owner feel better.
I'm in favour of anything that makes things better for society as a whole, that means I'm in favour of the technology continuing to improve as much as possible, of the most people possible benefiting from any new feature (never holding a feature back for even a day if it was ready to go) and it also means I'm in favour of the price continuing to decline.
I can't even fathom any argument against any of those 3 points. For those who agree with those points, but think Tesla should magically compensate them monetarily (or otherwise), I don't see what the benefit to society is. You already got everything you requested originally. making Tesla pay to innovate is a disincentive to innovate, and doesn't even solve the proposed problem because it only pushes the problem back to whatever the new cutoff point is.
And for those wanting the price to go up. Should they raise the price every time they change anything? Who will buy the million dollar model S? No, technology as a rule gets better AND cheaper over time, that's the way this works. Sure Tesla needs to make a profit margin, but they also have to sell the product at a price people will pay, continual price increases could actually erode the amount of money they make. If they have managed to improve their cost structure, they SHOULD pass it on to consumers, even if that means that the guy who buys next week gets a better product for less money than the guy who bought today. Tesla already has a higher margin on the Model S than the industry average by quite a bit, there's no need to ratchet it up further just to make some previous owner feel better.
I'm in favour of anything that makes things better for society as a whole, that means I'm in favour of the technology continuing to improve as much as possible, of the most people possible benefiting from any new feature (never holding a feature back for even a day if it was ready to go) and it also means I'm in favour of the price continuing to decline.
I can't even fathom any argument against any of those 3 points. For those who agree with those points, but think Tesla should magically compensate them monetarily (or otherwise), I don't see what the benefit to society is. You already got everything you requested originally. making Tesla pay to innovate is a disincentive to innovate, and doesn't even solve the proposed problem because it only pushes the problem back to whatever the new cutoff point is.
Clprenz
Member
I have not seen such ridiculous demands for new vehicles!!!! You bought the car you Ordered!!!! Tesla does not have a product cycle! If you wanted AWD or more driver assistance tech, YOU SHOULD HAVE WAITED!
Tesla will come out with a CPO program and you should at least give them a chance to unveil that before whining!
Tesla will come out with a CPO program and you should at least give them a chance to unveil that before whining!
^^^ This. Although it would be nice in eight to ten years to be able to send your Model S back to the factory for an instrumentation and interior refresh. I'd expect it to be about 25% to 30% of the price of a new car.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Semantics. You know what Green1 means. It doesn't help the discussion to say that he needs to open his mind. He knows the arguments on the other side but strongly disagrees with them making the word "fathom" appropriate in that context. It's best to deal with the issues raised without attacking the person making them as being closed minded.
Krugerrand
Meow
It is not an experience for everyone, but *we* thank you for boldly going forward.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
I've already repeatedly refuted some of these points. You simply don't respond to these points with respect to the Autopilot roll out. There are ways that Tesla could have and probably should have managed this better. The first thing they could have done is had their employees informed and ready to give factual and correct information the moment the first car was delivered with the new sensors. The second thing they could have done is be prepared to proactively give a small amount of money back on the cars without sensors being delivered at the same time as the cars with the new sensors. All that does is shift their reduction in profit slightly forward, but it goes a long ways towards customer satisfaction. They do these sorts of goodwill giveaways all the time in service, so it's not like they don't understand this concept.
As to your question as to what the social benefit is. That's simple, many early buyers bought Teslas because they believed in the idea of electric vehicles. Their future market is filled with people who don't care the slightest bit about the fact that the car is electric and doesn't have any emissions. Those people are not going to just accept that Tesla has to do this to quickly achieve the goals of making electric vehicles successful, because they don't care about that goal at all. Those future buyers care that Tesla provides a great product and great customer service. No matter how great the car is, people that have poor customer experiences will share those when asked and that may discourage future buyers. That of course is why Tesla bends over backwards with service. For some reason that same effort hasn't happened in sales.
No comment as to the P85+ vs P85D pricing and timeline. Especially with respect to other markets. I haven't put much thought into how to deal with that.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I know you wanted Green1's response but I'll take a stab at it.
Point 1: Agreed. But it's hard to keep my staff fully informed and I only have a few employees. Even when employees are informed, getting the message across properly to the client (in my case, or customer in Tesla's case) is often an entirely different matter. More importantly, this would not have stopped the complaints you are seeing here.
Point 2: Disagree. In my opinion, giving a small amount of money back would have made things worse. People buying these cars generally have a lot of money and they want the new goodies - not money back. I see that as rubbing salt in the wound. Also, from a legal standpoint, it may appear to be, or taken as, an admission of wrongdoing, when there was none.
Last edited:
Krugerrand
Meow
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
Nod, I'm not saying it's easy. I'm sure even if the word had been sent out some employees would get it wrong. But I'm under the impression that the employees just didn't know.
It would have meant something to me since it would have just been an acknowledgement that the situation wasn't great but they were aware of it. As to the legal bit, that's just silly. They could have just sold it as "Parking Sensors are standard now, here's your $500 back for them."
Canuck
Well-Known Member
It's not silly at all. I'm a lawyer and know that unless you get a Release and also document it as being refunded on a strictly without prejudice basis, it will be used against Tesla in Court -- and I would recommend against doing this in any event. As such, it would never get by Tesla's lawyers, despite the fact that it is a bad idea in the first place.
I know saying "I'm a lawyer" means nothing on an anonymous forum, so here's some other lawyers' opinions on this issue to businesses:
Dave Kason, a liability insurance adjuster in California, says the salon owner could give a refund in the spirit of dealing with a dissatisfied customer, but warns that if a lawsuit is filed, the plaintiff’s attorneys will use anything against a business owner, including the argument that a willingness to refund implies guilt.
Barry Sigman, a Michigan civil litigation lawyer, says salon owners must make refund decisions on a case-by-case basis. “It’s a delicate thing. If she gives a refund, she might want to ask for a ‘release from liability’ from the client. Of course, that could put ideas into the client’s head, and you certainly don’t want to drive them to a lawyer,” Sigman warns.
Sigman says that if an owner can get a client to agree to sign a liability release or a promise not to sue in exchange for the refund, the client cannot bring a suit. In a case like Johnson’s, where someone is already making some demands, Sigman advises the business owner to keep communication with the customer to an absolute minimum.
Is Refunding A Clients Money Admission Of Liability? - Business - NAILS Magazine
Here's what doctors are told...
- If the patient claims the treatment didn’t work or caused further injury, a refund could be construed as an admission of guilt should the patient decide to pursue a future malpractice claim against you.
And I could go on and on. As I trust you will now agree, there's nothing silly at all about my advice.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
I said silly based on the repeated statements that Tesla did nothing wrong. Which I agree with. Companies do exactly what I'm talking about all the time, some even as a matter of policy. I'm sure a lawyer can come up with a reason not to do anything.
The specific articles you linked to were in context of services that either went wrong or didn't work. Both happened to involve healthcare since the nail salon case the client ended up seeing a dermatologist. But even in that case it was clear that this is not a hard and fast rule but had to be decided based on the situation.
So yes, I still think this is a silly concern. No matter what Tesla does I'm sure there will be some idiot that sues them over this. There's already been a threat of that in another thread. Even if they had given a refund I doubt such a suit will go anywhere.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
The linked articles are not cases where liability is established but there is a suggestion of wrongdoing, just as many here have made with Tesla. While you may try to distinguish them, I quite certain Tesla's legal department would advise against your recommendation. At the very least, if you are prepared to acknowledge that there's no hard and fast rule, then my position can't be called "silly". I also suggest that even if you think my arguments are silly, it's not very polite to call my arguments that unless they are obviously silly.
Tesla could simply have discounted cars without the new features, though. Said the list price changed and they respect it for cars without this feature retrospectively for, say, 30 days (enough so that nobody gets a car delivered without the features without knowing of the discount first). It is hard to claim that as an admission of any wrongdoing, when it is a change in features and pricing. Either you get the added features or you get the lower pricing - and perhaps in both cases offer delivery refusal option too. Very hard to claim wrongdoing if you were informed and offered a chance to say no if they don't want the car.
Tesla offered retrospectively a major warranty to their battery. They can innovate in other areas as well, including change management. They could say we are making a big change in the product and want to keep our customers happy, here's how. I'm quite sure their lawyers could mend whatever ideas are thrown around to a working end-result.
- - - Updated - - -
Elon, please don't give up on taking our money to both make us happy and make yourself obscenely wealthy. PLEASE, Elon, PLEASE won't you be so kind???
i don't understand this thread at all.
It isn't hard to understand the thread, it is just pretty sad when you do.
breser
AutoPilot Nostradamus
Ok, silly was a poor choice of word. I think the concern over giving a refund in this case is overblown.
You can't just hand wave away my points about the relevance of your examples. Only one person on this thread at all has threatened to sue and that's the only person on either side that seems to think there is any possibility of legal recourse. The inventory car guy might have a case, depends on what he asked and how it was answered. But in general people like me who ordered and missed the date, don't have a case.
I have no idea how you can suggest you know what Tesla's legal department would say. I have dealt with enough lawyers to know that if you ask two lawyers the same question you'll get two different answers. If that wasn't the case we wouldn't have split Supreme Court opinions or different circuits with different rulings. So yes there's still some risk.
But if the risk is high and Tesla shouldn't give refunds, then just maybe Tesla should reconsider how they're conducting business in the first place that's creating the risk.
Similar threads
- Question
