Extended Service Agreements No Longer Transferable?

[Drivin]

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.

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

No, that is not true.
The ESA has conditions where they can protect themselves from insurance fraud, regardless of whether the first owner or the 20th owner tries to perpetrate the fraud.
So there is NO reason to require an approval for the transfer based on that concern.
No one else does.

Glad you agree that $100 is excessive - but asking for that is of course a revenue scheme - or are they giving that money to charity. LOL.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Glad you agree that $100 is excessive - but asking for that is of course a revenue scheme - or are they giving that money to charity. LOL.

There are going to be some parts that cost more and some less, but overall I'm pretty sure service is still a big money loser for Tesla.

 

[rxlawdude]

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.

I guess you're not around to read this, but "ESA will be transferred upon successful submission..." is not exactly a green flag to a buyer. And if Tesla *COULD* do it and it would be bad for Tesla, then why have that onerous provision in their contract in the first place?

 

[bhzmark]

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.

Which k provision requires them to be reasonable? I think you are reading a reasonability requirement into the contract that isn't there. We are reading the contract literally. And it creates the uncertainty of a post closing failure to transfer the esa bc tesla, reasonably or unreasonably, fails to recognize or effect the transfer. That's the issue.

 

[travwill]

Wow, I started this thread a long time ago and haven't been able to be on in a while. I caught up a little, went back online, and saw the new version - that now appears to allow for transfer. Totally happy with Tesla for apparently listening to us and making that change (or even having that version ready to go and having tested our reactions as owners). That is a bit shady but never the less, they've at least listened.

The fee isn't a big deal, and rest of process seems reasonable. The documentation of service seems a little odd since they should be able to look that up. I wished that area was 100% clear still but IMHO forces you to have the yearly service within 30 days of recommended time, etc. SC told me that last week when in.

For the discussion on Tesla "morals" that became popular on here. We are all fans of course, but everyone should remember that Tesla is a money making corporation, it will work in its interest in the end, seek profitable decisions (hopefully they will as a shareholder here), and still take care of its customers so they return. Since the beginning I've known they have crazy high margins compared to anyone else, and you can see that in their rather high rounded pricing; e.g. $2500 for this, $4,000 for this, $6000 for this, etc. Most companies are like, yes this option is $279, or $1854, etc.

Either way, transfer is back ;-)

 

[MsElectric]

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.

This exactly is my point.

They can deny to make the transfer for whatever reason once the sale is made and both the buyer and the seller are then completely screwed.

No other car manufacturer I know has such convoluted warranty transfer process complete with a mystery inspection. It is fine if they want to do an inspection or go over anything and collect $100. But they need to do that BEFORE the sale is made and they need to be CLEAR that before the sale is made they will absolutely verify the validity and the transferability of the ESA. Without which we are just marginally better off than when the ESA could not be transferred.

The whole value to a Tesla owner with having an ESA is to be able to sell the car with the unequivocal conveyance of the ESA warranty. Without that the car could be worth $5-6K less as some buyers may not want to touch a car out of warranty.

- - - Updated - - -

Either way, transfer is back ;-)

Unfortunately with many caveats, an undefined "inspection," and uncertainty. If you were selling your car under the current terms would you be 100% comfortable selling your car with the promise that the ESA will transfer?

 

[Krugerrand]

Unfortunately with many caveats, an undefined "inspection," and uncertainty. If you were selling your car under the current terms would you be 100% comfortable selling your car with the promise that the ESA will transfer?

Yes. If you're uncomfortable, simply get the promise in writing with the person's name and employee number. Tesla will honor it as they've always shown the proclivity to do right by their customers. Case in point...making ESA transferable!!!! They aren't trying to screw anyone, even though some seem convinced of it.

 

[brkaus]

This exactly is my point.

They can deny to make the transfer for whatever reason once the sale is made and both the buyer and the seller are then completely screwed.

No other car manufacturer I know has such convoluted warranty transfer process complete with a mystery inspection. It is fine if they want to do an inspection or go over anything and collect $100. But they need to do that BEFORE the sale is made and they need to be CLEAR that before the sale is made they will absolutely verify the validity and the transferability of the ESA. Without which we are just marginally better off than when the ESA could not be transferred.

The whole value to a Tesla owner with having an ESA is to be able to sell the car with the unequivocal conveyance of the ESA warranty. Without that the car could be worth $5-6K less as some buyers may not want to touch a car out of warranty.

- - - Updated - - -



Unfortunately with many caveats, an undefined "inspection," and uncertainty. If you were selling your car under the current terms would you be 100% comfortable selling your car with the promise that the ESA will transfer?

So how is this different from another manufacturer in terms of risk to the buyer? Other manufacturers will transfer the ESA based on a form and a check. But when you take the car in for actual work you still risk being denied a claim if prior maintenance was not documented.

Of course, in that case, if service was never necessary then one just would never know.

 

[MsElectric]

So how is this different from another manufacturer in terms of risk to the buyer? Other manufacturers will transfer the ESA based on a form and a check. But when you take the car in for actual work you still risk being denied a claim if prior maintenance was not documented.

Of course, in that case, if service was never necessary then one just would never know.

Big difference. With other manufacturers the reassignment of a warranty to a new owner is a matter of paperwork. No "inspections" are involved and there is no contract provision to submit to an "inspection" with the documentation evidencing the transfer of ownership to determine the validity of the ESA transfer. With other manufacturers, you basically file the paperwork and you are done.

And service records are easy to obtain so that is not an issue. The issue is with the procedure and how it could open up owners to liability if the ESA did not transfer with the current process.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. If you're uncomfortable, simply get the promise in writing with the person's name and employee number. Tesla will honor it as they've always shown the proclivity to do right by their customers. Case in point...making ESA transferable!!!! They aren't trying to screw anyone, even though some seem convinced of it.

You do realize the ESA Warranty was "made transferable" after dozens of pages of discussion on this forum; right?

The issue here is some of us feel the contract as it is written could be interpreted any number of ways and buyers and sellers could be left in a situation where after a sale they find out the ESA warranty would not transfer for whatever reason. Especially given that it calls or an "inspection" but no one knows what they are "inspecting."

What if a Tesla employee refuses to give what you suggest in writing? Wouldn't it be better to have a clear and fair process where you have an inspection and validation phase that determines the ESA is valid and the transfer will be approved prior to the sale with no ifs and buts?

 

[HankLloydRight]

What if a Tesla employee refuses to give what you suggest in writing?

All contracts and disputes can be resolved by 3rd party dispute resolution. It's written into every contract. Have you read those parts? The final decision is not going to be some "Tesla employee" deciding what is or isn't in the contract. And from what I've heard from several people, the simple threat of taking a dispute to arbitration is enough to get Tesla to capitulate.

 

[Drivin]

All contracts and disputes can be resolved by 3rd party dispute resolution. It's written into every contract. Have you read those parts? The final decision is not going to be some "Tesla employee" deciding what is or isn't in the contract. And from what I've heard from several people, the simple threat of taking a dispute to arbitration is enough to get Tesla to capitulate.

Sure.
If a company wanted to be different, then they wouldn't make this so onerous on the seller and avoid the need to threaten arbitration to get what other car companies provide without asking.

To channel Obi Wan "This isn't the different you are looking for"

 

[stopcrazypp]

Looking back through the thread, I just wanted to remind everyone that the transfer terms and conditions are pretty much exactly the same as since the ESA program started (including the $100 fee and inspection provision). People didn't have an issue or found it onerous then. Why is this suddenly an issue now?

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...Transferable?p=1363801&viewfull=1#post1363801

 

[MsElectric]

Which k provision requires them to be reasonable? I think you are reading a reasonability requirement into the contract that isn't there. We are reading the contract literally. And it creates the uncertainty of a post closing failure to transfer the esa bc tesla, reasonably or unreasonably, fails to recognize or effect the transfer. That's the issue.

This is essentially what a bunch of us are concerned with and saying. There's nothing there to say they will interpret the onerous provisions on contract as it reads literally in a reasonable way. The good thing is if the provisions are expected to be interpreted and executed in a reasonable way there should be no issue with putting that on the contract; right?

If the transfer provisions simply read that you go through a "validation" and "inspection" process before the sale with a conclusive determination made that the warranty will transfer no one would be having an issue with any of this. A buyer and a seller can then execute a purchase agreement with peace of mind that the warranty that was paid for is in fact real. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

- - - Updated - - -

Looking back through the thread, I just wanted to remind everyone that the transfer terms and conditions are pretty much exactly the same as since the ESA program started (including the $100 fee and inspection provision). People didn't have an issue or found it onerous then. Why is this suddenly an issue now?

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...Transferable?p=1363801&viewfull=1#post1363801

Perhaps people are being cautious about what the contract text actually says especially after they've seen the provisions of a contract that was posted earlier and then retracted with severely restrictive and draconian terms. In that context the text of the current contract, if you read it literally, is quite concerning as it can be interpreted in a way so that the transfer can only be validated upon presentation of documents evidencing a sale having taken place.

Some people are just asking for the ambiguity to be removed so the process is fair, clear and not up to arbitrary interpretation by whatever service center or person at the service center.

I am sure we can agree it is better for contract terms to be clear and fair than ambiguous and convoluted; right?

 

[HankLloydRight]

Sure.
If a company wanted to be different, then they wouldn't make this so onerous on the seller and avoid the need to threaten arbitration to get what other car companies provide without asking.

To channel Obi Wan "This isn't the different you are looking for"

I agree that it is somewhat more onerous that it needs to be. But some people are portraying this a "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!! OH NOW, WHAT IF A TESLA EMPLOYEE SAYS 'NO'???".

It's really not that bad, and in actual reality, will never, ever play out like some people continually are predicting.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Instead of people sitting here arguing the language, including non-owners who really have no skin in the game, why doesn't someone actually call Tesla and ask them how this works?

If I were selling my car private party, it shouldn't take more than a call to the local service center to find out if my ESA transfer would be accepted.

 

[bhzmark]

Instead of people sitting here arguing the language, including non-owners who really have no skin in the game, why doesn't someone actually call Tesla and ask them how this works?

If I were selling my car private party, it shouldn't take more than a call to the local service center to find out if my ESA transfer would be accepted.

Doesn't matter what they say on the phone. What matters is what the agreement says.

 

[Drivin]

I agree that it is somewhat more onerous that it needs to be. But some people are portraying this a "the sky is falling, the sky is falling!! OH NOW, WHAT IF A TESLA EMPLOYEE SAYS 'NO'???".

It's really not that bad, and in actual reality, will never, ever play out like some people continually are predicting.

That is a common straw man here. Some people say something negative or express a concern and they it is suddenly that they are saying "sky is falling" and "SOME BAD STATEMENT IN ALL CAPS!!"

Since people are pointing out a wide range of outcomes, of course not all outcomes will come true.

Some people have higher expectations than "not that bad", you know, like doing what other companies in the industry do. If your standards are not that high, that is okay but there is no need to be negative about people who do have that expectation.

- - - Updated - - -

Instead of people sitting here arguing the language, including non-owners who really have no skin in the game, why doesn't someone actually call Tesla and ask them how this works?

If I were selling my car private party, it shouldn't take more than a call to the local service center to find out if my ESA transfer would be accepted.

Have you tried calling and pretending you were selling your car?
If you sold your car to someone saying it has the ESA with it, would you rely on the statement from a phone call and represent to the buyer that the ESA was approved?

 

[HankLloydRight]

That is a common straw man here. Some people say something negative or express a concern and they it is suddenly that they are saying "sky is falling" and "SOME BAD STATEMENT IN ALL CAPS!!"

It's just that they're saying the same thing, several times a day, going on weeks now. We get it. Do we need to hear it every-hour-on-the-hour?

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Doesn't matter what they say on the phone. What matters is what the agreement says.

No, what matters is what they say on the phone because that is how their process works. Who cares what it says in the agreement. Call Tesla and ask them if they would accept your ESA transfer. Simple as that.

You guys seem to really enjoy dissecting contract language and having conversations about hypothetical upon hypothetical, yet nobody has bothered to contact Tesla about how the ESA transfer actually works. Shows true grit! lol

 

[Drivin]

It's just that they're saying the same thing, several times a day, going on weeks now. We get it. Do we need to hear it every-hour-on-the-hour?

1. No, you can just not read the thread and you won't hear it hour-on-the-hour.
2. It is the nature of forums and discussions. It is the back and forth and in 44 pages, points, both positive and negative, will be repeated. If people only posted a point that no one else has made, there probably wouldn't be more than a page of posts.