So is this what the page always said and they just haven't updated it to reflect the actual contract? The contract that you sign, the one that is currently posted, is what matters, not what one of their web pages say which might be out of date.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
So is this what the page always said and they just haven't updated it to reflect the actual contract? The contract that you sign, the one that is currently posted, is what matters, not what one of their web pages say which might be out of date.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Not necessarily. Depends on if the latter "mistake" announcement was a change in reaction to this thread, or if it really was just a mistake.Well that was 27+ pages of wasted time.
Yeah - how many mistakes that Tesla has made were fixed by this forum? I wonder if Elon himself gets sent all thread over 10 pages. I know if I was CEO, that is what I would want to see. When we get really really pissed off, they (he) would be crazy not to listen. Don't have to act of course, but listen. Since resale and reliability are very important to brand image, it was a a bonehead move. I'm guessing they were thinking that no one would notice...
OT: Is Transport Evolved Legit ?
Yes, it's legit - it's run by Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield, myself (Michael Thwaite) and some regular contributors and guests. It's been around since 2008 and was re-vamped in 2012. It used to be a weekly video podcast featuring interviews with everyone from EV industry execs from Tesla, Ford, GM, etc. to journalists, enthusiasts and EV artists; we've had regulars Jonny Smith, Robert Llewelyn, John Voelcker, Chelsea Sexton, etc. along with some celebs; Alexandra Paul, Thomas Dolby and many others. We transitioned to a news focused site in 2011ish and started a weekly bite-sized ten minute news review. We're 100% patron supported - no ads -> NO bias! Like TMC, what's printed isn't biased by any advertisers agenda - let me tell you it's freeing!
Back on topic; Nikki is an absolute stickler for getting to the facts - I'll send her interesting leads and she'll rip them apart! - besides, the facts are often more interesting and occasionally more outlandish than the rumors! The Tesla story was no different - she reached out to Tesla to figure out what was going on - she did her homework and Tesla came through for us.
MPT
Yes, it's legit - it's run by Nikki Gordon-Bloomfield, myself (Michael Thwaite) and some regular contributors and guests. It's been around since 2008 and was re-vamped in 2012. It used to be a weekly video podcast featuring interviews with everyone from EV industry execs from Tesla, Ford, GM, etc. to journalists, enthusiasts and EV artists; we've had regulars Jonny Smith, Robert Llewelyn, John Voelcker, Chelsea Sexton, etc. along with some celebs; Alexandra Paul, Thomas Dolby and many others. We transitioned to a news focused site in 2011ish and started a weekly bite-sized ten minute news review. We're 100% patron supported - no ads -> NO bias! Like TMC, what's printed isn't biased by any advertisers agenda - let me tell you it's freeing!Back on topic; Nikki is an absolute stickler for getting to the facts - I'll send her interesting leads and she'll rip them apart! - besides, the facts are often more interesting and occasionally more outlandish than the rumors! The Tesla story was no different - she reached out to Tesla to figure out what was going on - she did her homework and Tesla came through for us.
MPT
Xenoilphobe
Well-Known Member
Thanks Michael, I learn something new everyday.OT: Is Transport Evolved Legit ?
Back on topic; Nikki is an absolute stickler for getting to the facts - I'll send her interesting leads and she'll rip them apart! - besides, the facts are often more interesting and occasionally more outlandish than the rumors! The Tesla story was no different - she reached out to Tesla to figure out what was going on - she did her homework and Tesla came through for us.
MPT
So now that the ESA Extended Warranty is transferrable. What is the actual process for transferring the warranty?
Can someone who has access to the contract please post the details, along with the relevant fine print?
I hope it is a straightforward process so that it can be definitely determined when a car is put up for sale that the ESA warranty is indeed valid and Tesla would honor the transfer before the sale is made. There needs to be a clear process so we don't have situations where someone buys a private party car with the ESA only to find the warranty will not transfer due to some stipulation.
Didn't the previous contract have a stipulation for an undefined "inspection" before the ESA will transfer? Is that still in the current contract?
Can someone who has access to the contract please post the details, along with the relevant fine print?
I hope it is a straightforward process so that it can be definitely determined when a car is put up for sale that the ESA warranty is indeed valid and Tesla would honor the transfer before the sale is made. There needs to be a clear process so we don't have situations where someone buys a private party car with the ESA only to find the warranty will not transfer due to some stipulation.
Didn't the previous contract have a stipulation for an undefined "inspection" before the ESA will transfer? Is that still in the current contract?
Interesting forum name, but despite that, as of the date of this posting, the actual agreement anyone buying the ESA signs says:
"This Vehicle ESAis not transferrable by You under any circumstances"
Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?
So where is the "correct" contract? I know they now mention the ESA is transferrable in the Q&A section but it seems to be hastily put together as there are grammatical errors while the rest of the Q&A looks like it was put together by a lawyer.
I want to see the actual contract with the fine print and how this transfer is supposed to work. It needs to be clear and straightforward without any stipulations for an ambiguous and undefined "inspection" as was the case with the "previous" contract.
Here is the link to Tesla's official response, which was posted to the Tesla Motors forums by Tesla:
Tesla's Extended Service Agreement | Tesla Motors
For anyone who purchased this agreement since the agreement was changed, I would suggest you print out the above forum post from Tesla and attach it to the copy of your ESA on file. Even though the ESA says it cannot be modified, clearly Tesla is publicly modifying the agreement. While this may not satisfy the legal eagles, it should be sufficient for consumers to rely upon. It's a little sloppy, I'll admit, but as a consumer I would be relying on Tesla's own statements posted to Tesla's own web site regarding an amendment to the stated ESA terms. Any ambiguities would generally be construed in favor of the consumer, so I don't think there's anything to worry about from that standpoint.
What bugs me is that someone at Tesla, at some point, asked for the revised ESA agreement to be written the way that it is. Someone at Tesla DID want to exclude transferability. Given the overwhelming negative reaction to the changes, Tesla is now backtracking by saying it was a mistake. I don't really believe that it was a mistake. Mistakes of this magnitude don't usually take 6 days to admit, and even if it were a bonafide mistake, was it also a mistake to revise the agreement in the first place?
To me, it looks more like Tesla got called out on a bad decision in a spectacular way and it's now trying to save face by calling it a mistake. I'm thinking there is a senior executive (other than Musk) at Tesla who doesn't necessarily have owners' interests at heart. But then again, wouldn't such changes be approved by Musk?
Tesla's Extended Service Agreement | Tesla Motors
For anyone who purchased this agreement since the agreement was changed, I would suggest you print out the above forum post from Tesla and attach it to the copy of your ESA on file. Even though the ESA says it cannot be modified, clearly Tesla is publicly modifying the agreement. While this may not satisfy the legal eagles, it should be sufficient for consumers to rely upon. It's a little sloppy, I'll admit, but as a consumer I would be relying on Tesla's own statements posted to Tesla's own web site regarding an amendment to the stated ESA terms. Any ambiguities would generally be construed in favor of the consumer, so I don't think there's anything to worry about from that standpoint.
What bugs me is that someone at Tesla, at some point, asked for the revised ESA agreement to be written the way that it is. Someone at Tesla DID want to exclude transferability. Given the overwhelming negative reaction to the changes, Tesla is now backtracking by saying it was a mistake. I don't really believe that it was a mistake. Mistakes of this magnitude don't usually take 6 days to admit, and even if it were a bonafide mistake, was it also a mistake to revise the agreement in the first place?
To me, it looks more like Tesla got called out on a bad decision in a spectacular way and it's now trying to save face by calling it a mistake. I'm thinking there is a senior executive (other than Musk) at Tesla who doesn't necessarily have owners' interests at heart. But then again, wouldn't such changes be approved by Musk?
I keep wanting to see the updated contract with the real and actual provisions. Where is it? Also what's the actual procedure for enacting the transfer?
And as this whole thread has shown us the devil is in the details of the actual contract as that's what we can expect them to enforce. I am glad they are now saying publicly that the ESA Extended Warranty is transferable. This will be great for Tesla owners who want to sell the car and for prospective owner who would want to buy a Tesla with a longer extended warranty but this is only as good as the process in which a warranty can be transferred.
So what is the process of transferring an extended warranty?
I've seen a previous contract that made the process a 5 or 6 step convoluted mess that ends with a mystery "inspection" that Tesla would perform before the ESA warranty is transferred. Most concerning was that in the order of things this inspection would be done after the car was sold. Also what the inspection entails was not defined so presumably the ESA warranty could be denied transfer if the "inspection" fails in the event that verbiage is still on the contract.
This is why it is always good to go by what is on the actual contract and not nice sounding but ambiguous paragraphs of text in a Q&A section or forum post because such statements are really not part of the actual contract.
What matters is how the warranty can be transferred and not that it is technically possible.
I think for the benefit of all and to put this matter to rest once and for all, they should release the actual provisions of the ESA warranty that they plan to enforce. I don't think that's an unreasonable request and it will prevent future "misunderstandings" or "mistakes" as we will all then be aware of what the contract actually is.
Last edited:
I agree that Tesla should amend the agreement. It doesn't make sense that they have modified the written language of the 4 year warranty twice, once after the battery fires and a second time after the DU and battery warranties were extended. Hopefully we will see an amendment soon.
In politics this type of "mistake" is blamed on the "overzealous staffer".
Either Musk knew about this, approved it, and then back tracked...or he didn't know about this fundamental change and it took so long to resolve (based on the press reports that covered this).
Not sure which is worse.
Not sure either but I think at this point it is all water under the bridge and the important thing is this policy change is now admitted to be as a mistake.
Now to put this matter to rest and to truly resolve this concern we really need to see the actual contract for the ESA Extended Warranty that they plan to enforce. For those who have the ESA does it still show the contract that was enacted by mistake or do you see the new/current contract?
We also need to see the complete process for transferring an ESA Extended Warranty to someone else including any relevant fine print and any specific steps included in enacting a transfer. It's one thing for the ESA Extended Warranty to be technically transferable and it is another to have a clear, straightforward and fair process for transferring the warranty to someone.
Why not release this information so that this matter can be put to rest and everyone is clear on how this transfer is supposed to happen and what if any stipulations or limitations are attached to the transfer?
Last edited:
tinm
2020 Model S LR+ Owner
Larry
Member
The ability to buy the extended warranty on MyTesla is no longer available so they are in the process of updating it. Error, mistake, oversight, it doesn't matter at least they listened to their customers. Not sure if Mercedes or Lexus would do that. They f'd up and fixed it. Part of the growing pains. Also now that the ESA can be applied to a new Tesla purchase it makes it a little more reasonable for me to purchase it as I can apply the unused portion to the new purchase of an X. However define unused is still open so there is that.
Cyclone
Cyclonic Member ((.oO))
For those wondering about "upkeep" of the ESA, Tesla's blog post (as of 2/16/2016) at Service plans | Tesla Motors states:
I know this won't affect people who have their agreements from before recent revisions, but I thought it worthwhile for high-mileage drivers to keep this in mind.
I know this won't affect people who have their agreements from before recent revisions, but I thought it worthwhile for high-mileage drivers to keep this in mind.
BertL
Active Member
My experience has always been that other auto mfgrs also specify time or miles -- whichever comes first -- so on that front, Tesla is no different.
thegruf
Active Member
Seems like the transferability is sorted out. Well done everyone here for helping Tesla out with this, and repsect to Tesla for listening and responding pro-actively.
"Tesla’s reliability is one of the primary attractions to owning a Tesla."
So now we're just left with the nonsense of 12,500 miles max intervals which for thisa owner doing 25,000 miles/year means a 200 miles round trip and a day's leave every 6 months.
This would cost me more in servicing than my previous Audi RS5, an 8250 rpm revving V8! which needed servicing every 19,000 miles
Or of course I could not service it at all and the warranty would not be invalidated... so clearly servicing is not that critical anyway.
Sorry Tesla, but this is nonsense.
Just make it an annual service or 25,000 miles so it is more rational.
Anyway - what the heck do they do on a service anyway?
rotate the wheels - please dont
lubricate the hinges - erm?
change the brake fluid every 2 years - yup - that one is needed but it is time not mileage based
replace the brake pads if needed (now chargeable - was free before!)
wiper blades - was free - anybody know now?
update the software - well that's OTA anyway so meaningless
...?
"Tesla’s reliability is one of the primary attractions to owning a Tesla."
So now we're just left with the nonsense of 12,500 miles max intervals which for thisa owner doing 25,000 miles/year means a 200 miles round trip and a day's leave every 6 months.
This would cost me more in servicing than my previous Audi RS5, an 8250 rpm revving V8! which needed servicing every 19,000 miles
Or of course I could not service it at all and the warranty would not be invalidated... so clearly servicing is not that critical anyway.
Sorry Tesla, but this is nonsense.
Just make it an annual service or 25,000 miles so it is more rational.
Anyway - what the heck do they do on a service anyway?
rotate the wheels - please dont
lubricate the hinges - erm?
change the brake fluid every 2 years - yup - that one is needed but it is time not mileage based
replace the brake pads if needed (now chargeable - was free before!)
wiper blades - was free - anybody know now?
update the software - well that's OTA anyway so meaningless
...?
Yup and totally fair. Also agree with Larry that at this point it does not matter how the "incident" is classified as what is important is they listened to feedback.
Now, let us all see the contract with all the fine print including how the actual transfer is to happen
Similar threads
