Extended Service Agreements No Longer Transferable?

[BertL]

FWIW, Lexus has had a web-based system for years accessible to owners to see all maintenance history of a vehicle owned by them (accessed through our equivalent to My Tesla.) If you took your Lexus into any Lexus dealer, and even some Toyota dealerships, they input service records directly into that history. The owner could also input their own data there, and it was all accessible to Lexus, the Owner, as well as any future owners once the VIN was transferred in Lexus' records. If I sold my Lexus with their extended warranty and wanted to transfer it to the new owner, that history was used as evidence of service performed, i.e. if all service had always been done by a Lexus dealer anywhere you had nothing more to do. If you performed DIY service or had it done by a 3rd party, the owner still needed to provide that backup if requested, which to me was fair.

My point being, as others have said many times in this thread, life does not have to be so tough for a Tesla Owner to prove maintenance has been performed and to accomplish the transfer of extended policies IF Tesla wanted it to be. The key difference IMHO is other brands care a lot about customer loyalty and longevity because of their focus on selling new vehicles, servicing it, and having a satisfied customer that would eventually buy another of the same brand. Tesla cares about selling new and perhaps CPO vehicles alone, and their latest wording and hoops it puts owners through with these agreements show a lack of the same focus on the Customer that more mature companies understand and have supported with their initiatives for years.

 

[MsElectric]

Because, reading behind the lines, Tesla really doesn't want to offer the ESA. They are offering with worst terms they can get away with so they check off the box, but are doing pretty much everything they can to make it stink so you won't buy it.

Still not sure how this is going to help them though. Obviously they've realized by now the importance of offering an Extended Warranty as it demonstrates confidence in the product along with help maintain resale values for owners selling their cars.

By implementing it this way what are they going to accomplish though? They've already received $4,000 for a product/service so shouldn't it be a matter of principle to provide the service (in this case Extended Warranty coverage for the car) that has already been paid for? What's the point in alienating customers?

For many people who are not business owners buying or selling a car is a fairly large financial transaction, and it is especially so with a Tesla. Why needlessly make this process more stressful? Worse yet why put buyers and sellers through the possibility of going forward with the entire transaction before it can be definitely determined if the ESA is valid and will transfer?

- - - Updated - - -

The only thing I can think of is that if when you are selling your car you get $3k more for it because it has an ESA, but you didn't maintain the car so when the new buyer takes it in for repair they are denied, and blame Tesla because Tesla charged $100 to transfer something that they weren't going to honor. (So the buyer is out $3,100.)

This is more than the buyer being out $3,100 though. The buyer may have only been comfortable owning the car with a warranty. If a buyer buys a car that was sold with an extended warranty and then that warranty coverage was later denied, it could open up liability for the seller and the seller might have no recourse than to take up that matter with Tesla. And so we have a completely avoidable situation that could get nasty and messy for everyone.

I don't know of another car manufacturer that has an "inspection" as a pre requisite for transferring a warranty that was purchased but what makes this especially horrible is that to start this whole process that includes an inspection you first need to sell the car.

 

[FlasherZ]

"You may transfer this Vehicle ESA to a different private owner of the same Vehicle or, based upon the calculation specified in Section J(2)(a) through (c) below, as a credit applied to the purchase of a new Vehicle ESA for a new or Certified Pre-Owned (CPO) Tesla vehicle purchased by You, provided that you contact Tesla prior to any such transfer or purchase and submit the following:"

Many of you are reading this incorrectly.

The instructions say that you have to complete two steps:

1. You must contact Tesla prior to the transfer or purchase; and,
2. You must submit the required information.

The two do not have to be done simultaneously. The latter can be done following the sale. Tesla will tell you in #1 whether or not you have outstanding issues to deal with.

 

[MsElectric]

Many of you are reading this incorrectly.

The instructions say that you have to complete two steps:

1. You must contact Tesla prior to the transfer or purchase; and,
2. You must submit the required information.

The two do not have to be done simultaneously. The latter can be done following the sale. Tesla will tell you in #1 whether or not you have outstanding issues to deal with.

Except the information you are required to submit is that the sale has already taken place. This was discussed earlier.

You can't just go by that one paragraph that you quoted. You need to look at all the provisions. They are clearly asking you to submit proof evidencing the change of ownership when requesting the transfer.


J. Transfer and Cancellation by Customer

1. You may transfer this Vehicle ESA to a different private owner of the same Vehicle or, based upon the calculationspecified in Section J(2)(a) through (c) below, as a credit applied to the purchase of a new Vehicle ESA for a new orCertified Pre-Owned (CPO) Tesla vehicle purchased by You, provided that you contact Tesla prior to any suchtransfer or purchase and submit the following:
   • A written request for Tesla to transfer this Vehicle ESA to the new owner or apply it as a credit to the purchase ofa new Vehicle ESA for Your purchase of a new or CPO Tesla vehicle.
   • A copy of documentation evidencing (1) change of ownership and mileage at date of sale or (2) the purchaseagreement (e.g., Motor Vehicle Purchase Agreement) for the purchase of a new or CPO Tesla vehicle.
   • Payment of a $100 transfer fee for a transfer to a new owner of the Vehicle.
   • Written documentation verifying all maintenance requirements have been met for the Vehicle during the
     Agreement Period for this Vehicle ESA.
     The following conditions are required for the valid transfer of this Vehicle ESA:
     • The Vehicle is subject to inspection by Tesla.
     • Transfer must take place within 30 days of change of ownership or at least 10 days prior to the delivery of a new
     or CPO Tesla vehicle.
     • You may not transfer this Vehicle ESA to a vehicle dealer or to the customer of a vehicle dealer.• All remaining underlying warranties and documentation must be transferred to the new owner.

 

[FlasherZ]

Once again, the entire text doesn't preclude the following:

1. You "contact Tesla prior to any such transfer or purchase" and announce your intent to sell/transfer the car. Tesla looks over the car's records and gives you clearance to transfer the ESA.
2. You find a buyer and negotiate with buyer. You reach an agreement on the sale. You complete the sale or transfer with the other party.
3. You "submit the following: [...]" by sending the documents.

As I said, you're reading it wrong. That language does not require you to simultaneously contact Tesla while submitting the documents. I agree that the way some people use the English language would read it that way, but we're talking about legal documents. This is like interpretation of the NEC, plenty of people get it wrong because they don't parse the language correctly.

If Tesla wishes to exercise its "subject to inspection by Tesla", that would be done between steps 1 & 2.

 

[MsElectric]

Once again, the entire text doesn't preclude the following:

1. You "contact Tesla prior to any such transfer or purchase" and announce your intent to sell/transfer the car. Tesla looks over the car's records and gives you clearance to transfer the ESA.
2. You find a buyer and negotiate with buyer. You reach an agreement on the sale. You complete the sale or transfer with the other party.
3. You "submit the following: [...]" by sending the documents.

As I said, you're reading it wrong. That language does not require you to simultaneously contact Tesla and submit the documents. I agree that the way some people use the English language would read it that way, but we're talking about legal documents. This is like interpretation of the NEC, plenty of people get it wrong because they don't parse the language correctly.

How you are describing it is how a reasonable person would expect this to be implemented but this is not how I read the provisions that exist on the current contract.

I've read this contract multiple times and how you interpret it is not how it reads to me. They are not saying that any of what they are requiring is optional or can be done at another time. The second document they are asking for is proof of sale. As the contract is currently written there is no "checks and inspection" phase to validate and affirm the warranty will transfer before the car is sold.

If they meant for the transfer to happen as you describe, the provisions should be more like this:

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...rable/page38?p=1383403&viewfull=1#post1383403

 

[FlasherZ]

I've read this contract multiple times and how you interpret it is not how it reads to me. They are not saying that any of what they are requiring is optional or can be done at another time. The second document they are asking for is proof of sale. As the contract is currently written there is no checks and inspection phase to validate and affirm the warranty will transfer before it is sold.

This is because - again - you're reading it wrong.

Legal language is constructed in a very specific way. If Tesla required owners to "contact Tesla prior to any such transfer or purchase" AND "submit the [documents]" simultaneously, they would have said so. But then, for the very reasons that people are pointing out, it makes no sense because you can't possibly submit an after-the-sale documentation prior to the sale. No reasonable, neutral person would agree that your interpretation makes any sense.

Therefore, your construction/interpretation is wrong. Try stepping out of your negativity and read it as any neutral person would.

The contract says you must do two things:

You must contact Tesla prior to the sale.
-and-
You must submit documentation to them of the sale.

Please show me where it says you must do that at the very same time -- you can't, because it doesn't say that. You can complete the sale between the two actions. Tesla can clear you to transfer the ESA, without confusion, prior to you offering the car for sale. Then, following the sale, you submit the documentation.

 

[MsElectric]

This is because - again - you're reading it wrong.

Legal language is constructed in a very specific way. If Tesla required owners to "contact Tesla prior to any such transfer or purchase" AND "submit the [documents]" simultaneously, they would have said so. But then, for the very reasons that people are pointing out, it makes no sense because you can't possibly submit an after-the-sale documentation prior to the sale. No reasonable, neutral person would agree that your interpretation makes any sense.

Therefore, your construction/interpretation is wrong. Try stepping out of your negativity and read it as any neutral person would.

The contract says you must do two things:

You must contact Tesla prior to the sale.
-and-
You must submit documentation to them of the sale.

Please show me where it says you must do that at the very same time -- you can't, because it doesn't say that. You can complete the sale between the two actions. Tesla can clear you to transfer the ESA, without confusion, prior to you offering the car for sale. Then, following the sale, you submit the documentation.

I guess my concern comes from the fact that I know of no other car manufacturer that has such a process complete with an undefined inspection. They all essentially have a one page form where you sign over the Extended warranty to the new owner and you are then done.

I do see your point in that there is nothing there that says they will not validate and confirm the ESA will transfer before the sale but it is ambiguous.

Will you then agree that there is nothing there that says that they will allow you to submit everything else with the exception of documentation of sale and at that point they will validate the ESA and confirm that it will transfer before the sale? Because if that is proven to be the case there is no issue.

The way it is drafted it can be implemented either way. If you read the provisions in a literal sense they can take the position that the transfer and validation would only happen after the sale.

 

[HankLloydRight]

I look at it two ways.

There's the first way with lawyers and legal mumbo jumbo whatever.

But the second way is the reality is that you take your car into a SC, with the proof of change in ownership and $100, and they'll likely just do the transfer. There are no lawyers at the Service centers... there's likely an online form they fill out with a few checkboxes (new owner's name; address; paid $100; etc) and then the ESA is transferred.

All this bellyaching over the actual terms in the document is likely a colossal waste of effort and time. I just bought the ESA today (using referral credits - YAY!) and I'm sure by the time I need to do a transfer, it will all come down to a little form on the SC computer screen to fill out and collect $100.

 

[FlasherZ]

Will you then agree that there is nothing there that says that they will allow you to submit everything else with the exception of documentation of sale and at that point they will validate the ESA and confirm that it will transfer before the sale? Because if that is proven to be the case there is no issue.

I agree with that, because there is indeed nothing there that says they will allow you to do that. But that's not what's at issue here.

The way the contract reads, you must contact Tesla prior to selling (advertising) the vehicle and announce your intent to sell/transfer. At that point, Tesla can exercise its option to inspect the vehicle if it desires, and you can ask them to supply a statement that the ESA will be transferred upon completion of the second requirement - which is that you supply the documentation after the sale/transfer.

 

[Drivin]

1. You "contact Tesla prior to any such transfer or purchase" and announce your intent to sell/transfer the car. Tesla looks over the car's records and gives you clearance to transfer the ESA.

Don't think it has been discussed, but what happens if you do the above and they say no? No transfer for you.

Like maybe you wrote a post they didn't like, or criticized their launch event, or said something not nice about Musk. I mean it isn't as if the company every denied a potential buyer the ability to buy their car for reasons that were not related to their ability to pay

I don't know of any other car company that does this or have such poorly drafted agreements. Odd.

- - - Updated - - -

I look at it two ways.

There's the first way with lawyers and legal mumbo jumbo whatever.

But the second way is the reality is that you take your car into a SC, with the proof of change in ownership and $100, and they'll likely just do the transfer. .

Sure, just like they will likely not charge you $3/mile for ranger service since no one is ever going to look at the contract changes. LOL.

Like most businesses, Tesla seems to be moving from "good intentions" to "bean counters making sure we can still pay the rent".

Remind me again why Tesla would charge $100 for this? I thought Musk said that those other companies are so bad for trying to make money on service. $100 for changing a name and contact info in an online form? Wow, that must be really, really expensive data entry people they have there.

 

[FlasherZ]

Don't think it has been discussed, but what happens if you do the above and they say no? No transfer for you.

Like maybe you wrote a post they didn't like, or criticized their launch event, or said something not nice about Musk. I mean it isn't as if the company every denied a potential buyer the ability to buy their car for reasons that were not related to their ability to pay

Then that would be a poor business process and they'd deserve all the negativity they get from such a stupid move. I suspect they're not going to do that, it tends to put a black eye on the company. That's far different than someone who trashes Elon in a phone call.

But that's not the concern that I've been reading for a couple of days here. The argument that people have been raising here is not knowing whether a seller can represent that the ESA is transferable when advertising the car. With this language, I don't see that as an issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Like most businesses, Tesla seems to be moving from "good intentions" to "bean counters making sure we can still pay the rent".

I haven't had that experience. While I can feel and understand their focus on the cash crunch, and their communications are always seemingly misconstrued, I haven't experienced any actions by the company that would lead me to agree with that statement.

- - - Updated - - -

For example:

 

[Drivin]

Then that would be a poor business process and they'd deserve all the negativity they get from such a stupid move. I suspect they're not going to do that, it tends to put a black eye on the company.

Funny. If they aren't going to do it, then why do they have this provision??? You don't have a provision saying you need approval if you don't think you are going not going to use that provision. LOL. Who the heck does this?

That's far different than someone who trashes Elon in a phone call.

LOL.
If they are willing to trash a VC/blogger/famous silicon valley person and take the PR heat because of something he said in a private phone call, I don't know why joe-average consumer is in a better position against petty actions.

 

[stopcrazypp]

LOL.
If they are willing to trash a VC/blogger/famous silicon valley person and take the PR heat because of something he said in a private phone call, I don't know why joe-average consumer is in a better position against petty actions.

Because unlike that guy, you are unlikely to have a past history with Elon (the guy Elon cancelled apparently snubbed Elon during the Paypal days).

 

[MsElectric]

If they are willing to trash a VC/blogger/famous silicon valley person and take the PR heat because of something he said in a private phone call, I don't know why joe-average consumer is in a better position against petty actions.

Please, please do not drag this into this discussion. Tesla/Elon denying service to an obnoxious customer has nothing to do with what we are discussing. There is a separate thread for that.

From all I've gathered about this matter I think Elon/Tesla absolutely made the right call in refusing to serve this particular customer.

Please let us stick to the provisions of the ESA on this thread.

 

[FlasherZ]

Funny. If they aren't going to do it, then why do they have this provision??? You don't have a provision saying you need approval if you don't think you are going not going to use that provision. LOL. Who the heck does this?

They're not going to do that to a customer who doesn't deserve it, but they need to protect themselves for those customers who do deserve that. They have the provision for those cases where we all agree that the customer action was improper. For example, a customer who decides to explore the car's innards (let's say to hack things), screws it up something horrible, then decides to sell the car with the ESA and tell the buyer that Tesla will repair the stuff that's bad. Tesla needs a way to refuse to transfer the ESA to protect the second consumer from buying the car and having a bad experience.

For me, Tesla has always done the right thing. And I didn't have to demand everything in writing and have my lawyer attend any repair appointments. I talk to them reasonably and they've always come through to do the right thing.

 

[rxlawdude]

This is because - again - you're reading it wrong.

Legal language is constructed in a very specific way. If Tesla required owners to "contact Tesla prior to any such transfer or purchase" AND "submit the [documents]" simultaneously, they would have said so. But then, for the very reasons that people are pointing out, it makes no sense because you can't possibly submit an after-the-sale documentation prior to the sale. No reasonable, neutral person would agree that your interpretation makes any sense.

Therefore, your construction/interpretation is wrong. Try stepping out of your negativity and read it as any neutral person would.

The contract says you must do two things:

You must contact Tesla prior to the sale.
-and-
You must submit documentation to them of the sale.

Please show me where it says you must do that at the very same time -- you can't, because it doesn't say that. You can complete the sale between the two actions. Tesla can clear you to transfer the ESA, without confusion, prior to you offering the car for sale. Then, following the sale, you submit the documentation.

Flasher, you are missing the entire point of the problem. Yes, you can notify Tesla prior to the transfer. You CANNOT submit the paperwork until AFTER the sale is completed. There is no guarantee that Tesla will "accept" the transfer and this opens the seller to potential liability and certainly results in a pissed off buyer.

 

[FlasherZ]

Flasher, you are missing the entire point of the problem. Yes, you can notify Tesla prior to the transfer. You CANNOT submit the paperwork until AFTER the sale is completed. There is no guarantee that Tesla will "accept" the transfer and this opens the seller to potential liability and certainly results in a pissed off buyer.

While I agree that they *could* do this, it defies reasonable behavior and would be a very very bad press day for Tesla. And the seller, after notifying Tesla, can ask Tesla for a statement that the ESA will be transferred upon successful submission of the documentation. That way they will have an indication of whether they can advertise the car with the ESA or not.

 

[Drivin]

They're not going to do that to a customer who doesn't deserve it, but they need to protect themselves for those customers who do deserve that.

Is there is list of all the cases where a customer doesn't deserve it or is that subject to the whims of Tesla?

They have the provision for those cases where we all agree that the customer action was improper.

What do you mean "we all agree"? If the customer doesn't agree, than we all don't agree.

Installation of aftermarket equipment?
Driving it as a commercial vehicle (Uber) ?
Drag racing?
Excessive speeding (does the car track that info?)?
Excessive or harsh braking? (you should have used regen more!!)
Not maintaining your car to be properly driven in California (improper window tinting, no front license plate holder) - no ESA transfer for you.


But even all this doesn't matter, since why does Tesla even do this in the first place?
If they want to deny something in the ESA, they can do that regardless of whether you are the original owner or the 20th owner.
This just places a burden on the owner and it is another money grab ($100?, really? Don't they use computers?)

- - - Updated - - -

Please, please do not drag this into this discussion. Tesla/Elon denying service to an obnoxious customer has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

You can't argue that Tesla would not do something because they are afraid of bad PR and just ignore what they did in this case. There was bad PR. Some agree with the decision, some don't.

 

[FlasherZ]

I can't explain any of this to anyone who makes the assumption that Tesla's out to screw its customers, so I'll be unsubscribing from this thread. I don't really need the negativity.

Tesla does this to protect itself from being forced to use the ESA to cover things that frankly shouldn't be covered - a/k/a insurance fraud. If you think that Tesla's out to do something else nefarious to its customers, then I won't be able to talk to you - sorry. In *every* case that I've seen where people have talked with Tesla in good faith, Tesla has done right by the customer. Only in those cases where the customers insisted on being litigation-threatening and press-hounding were there issues.

I agree that $100 for transfer seems excessive, but it's not like it's some nefarious revenue scheme.

My best to you.