Extended Service Agreements No Longer Transferable?

[Wshowell]

What I see this as is an acknowledgment from Tesla that the future costs of repairs and likelihood of repairs post the original warranty period or beyond the original owner's ESA are too great for them to bear the financial burden any longer. This is especially disconcerting considering the manufacturer (Tesla) is able to replace and repair parts for costs and has a monopoly on parts and repairs. Didn't Elon state they were NOT going to use their SCs as a profit center? They've just guaranteed a future profit source for themselves, alienated current owners and scared away future buyers of used vehicles. I imagine the value of higher mileage used S's from 2012 and 2013 just tanked too. It'll be CPO for me if I buy at all now. This is NOT reassuring in any way.

 

[bhzmark]

DAMN - they changed the language on the one I purchased in 28 Dec 2013 and uploaded a new agreement dated November 2015 with the same changes. #$#$%!!!

They may have changed the language in the document that happens to be in the mytesla website document section, but they didn't unilaterally change the language in the document that contains the terms of the agreement you executed on 28 Dec 2013. That agreement still says what is says and can't be changed without your written consent.

They likely just messed up the mytesla page with the incorrect agreement. you might email them and say "The ESA agreement that we agreed to on 28 Dec 2013 is no longer on the mytesla page. Pls put that back or otherwise send me a copying confirming that you have the right copy of the ESA terms that we agreed to in 2013."

you should then have comfort that your old terms are still in place.

 

[MsElectric]

I frankly think folks like you live for the debate, as I've been through the same thing on Lexus forums as to if extended warranties are good or bad a zillion times over the years. The FACT is, there is no single answer that is good for everyone, and it's impossible to draw conclusions based on anything other than hope when it comes to Tesla because the brand is so new and there is no AFTER WARRANTY track record for the need of repairs. I'm happy you have made the decisions you have for yourself. They are not however my, and perhaps other's POV.

Reliability is very important to me when considering an auto brand. Unlike some owners, I prefer to keep my rides 6-8 years on average, but I also put a lower number of miles on them (implying I perhaps do far more errands getting in-and-out of my vehicle, than others that do with longer commutes and road trips). I also came from owning a Lexus Hybrid and a MBZ ICE to now my single MS, and I have remote family dependent on me to get there if problems were to arise -- so having my MS available and operational is an imperative. I'm a research hound and spent months looking into Tesla and MS before ordering this past September. Beyond the whole range anxiety thing I had to get over -- and isn't part of this discussion -- my greatest personal debate was if I could trust Tesla reliability and what it would likely cost me to own one for the whole time I have it in my garage -- especially for a vehicle that's base price cost me $40K more than each of the previous luxury brands I owned. I want to budget for the rides I own for their life, and I'm willing to perhaps pay a bit more than some by having an extended warranty if that is what it takes to hedge my bets with total cost of ownership. My personal experience has been I would never own a MBZ or BMW without a nearly bumper-to-bumper extended warranty. OTOH, having one on a Lexus is a more difficult decision as I've not had the same personal need for repairs on any of the Lexi I've owned -- some more than 8 years.

The net on Tesla MS reliability for me was (and is) there is no brand track record to give any true feeling of longer term reliability, so I think it's just a crap shoot what anyone says one way or the other. I do know that Tesla isn't Toyota where some decades old vehicles are still on the road that have had almost no work done to them of any consequence. Tesla does not have the recognized long-term reliability that I've experienced for more than 20 years with Lexus. Some well known luxury vehicles often compared to MS are just flat-out expensive to maintain as they age -- everyone reading this can fill-in their (typically German brand) names with examples they may know. Only the first MS are about to exit warranty, so there are no facts from decent 3rd-party surveys to speculate from, as there is with nearly every other auto manufacturer.

I consider it as only subjective input when one tries to compare the sort of failures owners have encountered during warranty and extrapolate that out to post-warranty. Using data from independent sources like True Delta, is still only using in-warranty data for MS. Comments and horror stories on forums like TMC are what they are, and may not perhaps be representative of the broader set of owners -- but, it's input for consideration just-the-same, especially when no other real data exists. I am uncomfortable extrapolating that my Tesla MS will be as reliable as say Lexus has proven itself to be over 5 models and 20 years of my ownership, along with generally acknowledged trade-recognized statistics... Elon's statements that recent MS (mine?) are more reliable, is just that -- a marketing statement -- not something with facts to back it up that sways me one way or the other.

While it also can be debated, I always look at terms and price a mfgr has for their extended warranty, and use that as an indicator -- right or wrong -- of the mfgr's confidence in their own vehicle in the post-warranty years. Along those lines, mfgrs like Lexus that offered 8-year extended warranty for $1600 with no deductible on my previous 2013 RX450h say something to me, whereas MBZ wouldn't offer more than 7-years at double that price, and my last BMW was also over-the-top price-wise, but had specific exclusions including all the components (motors, struts, etc) on my hardtop convertible -- which are probably the most mechanical part of that vehicle beyond the ICE. As I said, it's all just input, but it does say something to me ...just as Tesla does by making the change to their terms not allowing transfer and increasing price before the first MS ever makes a claim using an extended warranty and early owner may have purchased.

I have traded-in as many vehicles as I've sold on the open market before buying the next one. I would say that with my luxury BMW and MBZ, having the transferable extended warranty made a significant difference allowing me to sell quickly and achieve top of comparative private-party prices. It was a HUGE differentiator with my BMW that I got rid of because of ongoing reliability issues (but still felt OK selling it by providing all service records and it had another 6-years of coverage, even though it ended-up with a class action suit that was won a couple years after I let it go.)

For me though, I just don't yet have sufficient evidence Tesla has built a product that is designed for cost-effective long-term ownership like I want to enjoy, nor do I see Tesla taking actions that are evidence they care about anything other than selling new (and maybe CPO) cars. I hope I'm proven wrong. As you and others point out, a Tesla extended warranty isn't needed to deal with the power train ...but, just like all ICE vehicles, Tesla still has other gears, hinges, motors, switches, 12V battery, and loads of electronics perhaps beyond other competitive vehicles. With a single exception, none of my previous vehicles have ever had problems pre or post-warranty with the ICE and it's components -- it was always with all the other things that a MS has as well -- struts/hinges, electric windows, audio system, steering wheel and seat movement, auto-dimming mirrors, etc. Some failed during warranty, others in years 5-8 ...but that's just my personal 40+ years owning and experiencing Ford, Honda, Acura, Toyota, Lexus, MBZ and BMW -- and now Tesla.

To each their own with a decision on the value of an extended warranty. They don't have sufficient value for me with some manufacturers, but they do with others. As I said earlier, I'm sad for MS owners that didn't buy when they had the opportunity -- assuming they wanted to in the first place, but I am pleased I bought my contract with the transfer terms in-tact when I did.

I completely agree with your assessment. Those Model S owners who purchased the ESA warranty before these horrible policy changes did indeed luck out.

Unfortunately even they will be affected by these policy changes if they decide to sell their car as when the word gets out that Tesla refuses to transfer the ESA warranty for private party sales, potential buyers may not realize that this affects only to cars with an ESA bought before some date when they quietly changed the ESA contracted and uploaded the new one.

I really hope Tesla reverses these policy changes for the ESA warranty and I don't think what many are asking for is unreasonable.

+ If someone paid $4,000 for an ESA warranty it is such a draconian policy to take the position that warranty is void when selling the car to someone else. Many people purchase an extended warranty not just for their peace of mind but to maintain the value of the car when they sell the car. Why is it so hard for Tesla to honor to cover the car for 4 additional years as they promised to do when they sold the ESA?

+ Why not make the ESA warranty available for CPO car purchases. Every single other automaker offers the option for CPO cars to be bought with an extended warranty. This is because for a large segment of premium car buyers the extended warranty is critically important. CPO buyers are likely even more price sensitive than new car buyers as otherwise they would have bought the car new and i have a feeling many will find the inability to buy a CPO car with an extended warranty to be quite disconcerting.

The current policy rightly or wrongly amplifies the fact that Tesla is uncomfortable standing behind the reliability of their cars beyond the factory warranty and if that is the case how would someone about to buy a used Model S feel?

 

[TexasEV]

What I see this as is an acknowledgment from Tesla that the future costs of repairs and likelihood of repairs post the original warranty period or beyond the original owner's ESA are too great for them to bear the financial burden any longer. This is especially disconcerting considering the manufacturer (Tesla) is able to replace and repair parts for costs and has a monopoly on parts and repairs. Didn't Elon state they were NOT going to use their SCs as a profit center? They've just guaranteed a future profit source for themselves, alienated current owners and scared away future buyers of used vehicles. I imagine the value of higher mileage used S's from 2012 and 2013 just tanked too. It'll be CPO for me if I buy at all now. This is NOT reassuring in any way.

No, because this has nothing to do with cars sold in 2012 and 2013. If they had an extended warranty, it's still transferable. It only applies to cars sold going forward, meaning it starts with cars that will be bought in 2016 with extended warranties.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

What I see this as is an acknowledgment from Tesla that the future costs of repairs and likelihood of repairs post the original warranty period or beyond the original owner's ESA are too great for them to bear the financial burden any longer.

^^ this.

Bottom line: Elon is full of crap about Model S reliability. If the reliability had truly improved like he said, then Tesla would not have to reign in costs on its ESA. This change impacts NEW vehicle purchases of the supposedly more reliable cars. I am starting to believe that Elon will say whatever he thinks he needs to say in order to stimulate new vehicle sales, then quietly change directions when nobody is looking.

This all reflects on Elon, who I've been saying for some time now, is not leading Tesla in a positive direction. All of Tesla's recent bad decisions, including the ESA change, are all on his watch and with his approval. Can we finally see why Jerome Guillen chose to leave this company after building a world-class service organization? What Jerome worked so hard to create, Elon is tearing down.

 

[BertL]

They may have changed the language in the document that happens to be in the mytesla website document section, but they didn't unilaterally change the language in the document that contains the terms of the agreement you executed on 28 Dec 2013. That agreement still says what is says and can't be changed without your written consent.

They likely just messed up the mytesla page with the incorrect agreement. you might email them and say "The ESA agreement that we agreed to on 28 Dec 2013 is no longer on the mytesla page. Pls put that back or otherwise send me a copying confirming that you have the right copy of the ESA terms that we agreed to in 2013."

you should then have comfort that your old terms are still in place.

THANK YOU for trying to help calm the community. Most people recognize Tesla does not have a great track record with what My Tesla sometimes conveys. I learned that even before I ordered having read threads here on TMC, and purposely retain my own offline copy of every important document I've agreed to as part of my Tesla experience. My Tesla is also showing me only the new agreement terms -- not the versions I agreed to when I purchased them.

As I've said here multiple times, I don't agree with Tesla's changes, but I also know it's important to not jump to conclusions. For everyone else getting caught up in Social Media frenzy saying things are shady and the like: It was already stated earlier in this thread by someone that confirmed in writing with Tesla NA Tech Help that THE TERMS IN PLACE WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE AGREEMENT REMAIN IN EFFECT. If you don't believe that, I suggest you contact Tesla yourself to avoid becoming more frustrated and voicing concern over nothing here.

• If you already have your paid-for agreement with transferability terms, calm down a little bit. You're golden in that regard and your price was locked-in when you purchased.
• If you didn't buy the agreement when you could of, well, you now only have the new terms and pricing to consider if they work for your situation -- that's the way it goes. No business guarantees terms and pricing will remain the same forever, including Tesla's competition, your home mortgage company, or some other financial institution.
• All present and future owners, including myself, IMHO can remain concerned about what these changes really mean for our future, Tesla's internal thoughts about their own product reliability, possible impact on residual value of our beloved MS, and the effect these new terms may have on our individual assessment if we'd purchase another Tesla today or tomorrow.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

As I've said here multiple times, I don't agree with Tesla's changes, but I also know it's important to not jump to conclusions. For everyone else getting caught up in Social Media frenzy saying things are shady and the like: It was already stated earlier in this thread by someone that confirmed in writing with Tesla NA Tech Help that THE TERMS IN PLACE WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE AGREEMENT REMAIN IN EFFECT. If you don't believe that, I suggest you contact Tesla yourself to avoid becoming more frustrated and voicing concern over nothing here.

Is that really what people are upset about? I don't get that feeling from this thread.

People are upset by the direction in which Tesla is headed and the negative message this sends to customers. I don't think anyone is upset because they thought their ESAs were changed retroactively. I'm unhappy with the decisions that are being made by Tesla's senior executives, and this change to the ESA is included.

 

[jborak]

If you used Tesla financing there is already a floor on the used price of your car, so I don't think changing the ESA policy for new customers will change that. It sounds like this will be good for those who already purchased one, they might be able to get more from a private party sale or at least retain more if that time comes.

The biggest risk to depreciation for current MS owners, in my opinion, is the Model 3 and a next-gen or refreshed Model S. Who would buy my used Model S (even with a past ESA agreement in place) for 40k-ish when you can buy a new Model 3 for 35k (before tax credits) that comes with a 3rd generation drive unit and battery system, and most likely newer autopilot hardware and creature comforts?

Having an 8 year warranty on the drive unit and battery gives me a lot of peace of mind. I'm hoping that Tesla makes upgrading batteries to newer packs a fair transaction for owners. I plan on keeping the car for at the most 8 years. Maybe by then we won't be buying cars anymore...

 

[HankLloydRight]

No, because this has nothing to do with cars sold in 2012 and 2013. If they had an extended warranty, it's still transferable. It only applies to cars sold going forward, meaning it starts with cars that will be bought in 2016 with extended warranties.

Nope. It affects any owner of any Model S that has not yet bought the ESA.

You can buy the ESA up to 30 days prior to the factory warranty expiring.

I have a 2013 Inventory car. I've been considering the ESA since I received some referral credits. I would be subject to the terms of the new (Nov 2015) agreement.

 

[rxlawdude]

Nope. It affects any owner of any Model S that has not yet bought the ESA.

You can buy the ESA up to 30 days prior to the factory warranty expiring.

I have a 2013 Inventory car. I've been considering the ESA since I received some referral credits. I would be subject to the terms of the new (Nov 2015) agreement.

Correct. The new terms are what anyone purchasing the ESA after 2/1/16 will agree to. Previously issued ESAs will be honored as written at the time of ESA purchase. Nothing to do with when the vehicle was purchased.

 

[BertL]

Is that really what people are upset about? I don't get that feeling from this thread.

People are upset by the direction in which Tesla is headed and the negative message this sends to customers. I don't think anyone is upset because they thought their ESAs were changed retroactively. I'm unhappy with the decisions that are being made by Tesla's senior executives, and this change to the ESA is included.

Fast moving thread again... I was responding to posts 212, 213, 214. Took me a moment to get my thoughts organized while you and others jumped in with several other posts.

...and I agree with your thoughts about the broader challenges and recent decisions that don't bode well for promoting long-term customer sat and loyalty -- only new car sales (but that too IMHO will only work for what remains of cash-rich early adopters or a few more Elon zealots that are not already bought-in, likely not the next layer of people like myself that are buying MS and MX today, or the masses which M3 is targeted at who will care even more about residuals, keeping their cars longer than what base warranty provides, and total cost of ownership.) As I said elsewhere, my experience with executive leadership is that the best strategy leaders that are so good at creating a vision, starting a business or rebuilding one that is crumbling, don't generally have the skill needed for long-term growth and employee/customer retention. They doom their business if they don't quickly surround themselves with at least a couple other Execs they fully trust and empower to run the parts of the business they are not interested in or have the skills to manage. I believe that more every time something like this terms change occurs at Tesla. It's truly sad. As much as I still love my MS and what Elon is trying to do for the future, I would not make the same decision that I made last September ordering my MS. It's come to that.

 

[JeffS]

Is that really what people are upset about? I don't get that feeling from this thread.

People are upset by the direction in which Tesla is headed and the negative message this sends to customers. I don't think anyone is upset because they thought their ESAs were changed retroactively. I'm unhappy with the decisions that are being made by Tesla's senior executives, and this change to the ESA is included.

Yep...you nailed it. And I'm in this thread to try to get folks to take a breath. All of us, bashing the hell out of the company we are currently in bed with, is not fruitful. The ESA at $4,000 and a $200/visit deductible is not a good deal. The parts that are out of warranty that seem vulnerable are few. (I intentionally did not get the Pano nor the air suspension as I viewed them as really expensive and vulnerable systems...those two are concerning and concerns are valid). It's an electric car. Electric cars have so few systems. The software is as bullet-proof as anything I have ever used. The motor and battery are all covered 8 years unlimited miles. With all that said, the ESA is not a good deal. That you can't transfer something that is not all that good, may not be all that bad.

I understand the angst. And I understand many owners trade every couple of years making depreciation a real consideration. And this is not good for depreciation. But my hunch is, these cars will prove very reliable between 50k and 100k miles. Build-bugs will get worked out in the original B2B warranty, and the second 50k miles will be largely uneventful. That's my hunch. It's also my prayer I guess.

Suffice to say, TMC users bashing Tesla is not doing anything positive for resale. That much is for certain. Is the TMC thread doing more harm than the change in policy? Maybe. Something to think about.

 

[MsElectric]

Yep...you nailed it. And I'm in this thread to try to get folks to take a breath. All of us, bashing the hell out of the company we are currently in bed with, is not fruitful. The ESA at $4,000 and a $200/visit deductible is not a good deal. The parts that are out of warranty that seem vulnerable are few. (I intentionally did not get the Pano nor the air suspension as I viewed them as really expensive and vulnerable systems...those two are concerning and concerns are valid). It's an electric car. Electric cars have so few systems. The software is as bullet-proof as anything I have ever used. The motor and battery are all covered 8 years unlimited miles. With all that said, the ESA is not a good deal. That you can't transfer something that is not all that good, may not be all that bad.

I don't think anyone is arguing here that the Tesla Extended ESA is decent. To the best of my knowledge the Tesla ESA Extended warranty is the worst extended warranty in the automotive business with all the draconian restrictions, stipulations, and absurdly high deductibles. So I'm sure many would agree with you that the $4,000 warranty is a horrible warranty. The problem is that they just made it even worse.

I think though what many of us are saying is that we'd rather have a less than ideal warranty than absolutely no extended warranty at all. I'd rather pay $4,000 for the extended warranty for the peace of mind of knowing that if something goes wrong with the car it is covered. I'd also like to have the peace of mind of knowing that I can sell the car if I want to on my own with the Extended Warranty offering some degree of comfort to the buyer. Without being able to sell a car with an Extended Warranty, used car buyers may start offering substantially less for private party cars offered for sale or they might completely rule out buying a Tesla private party. Unfortunately this might be what Tesla is trying to do to boost their CPO sales.

The other part of this is that if a customer feels completely ripped off for a repair it will absolutely ruin their ownership experience and love for the company. It is no secret that the Model S has not been the most reliable car and this is backed up by Consumer Reports. The reason the Model S still has sky high customer satisfaction ratings is because the poor reliability has not financially affected Tesla owners - yet.

No one wants car ownership to be a blank check to the car manufacturer and yet without a warranty that's what it is. Tesla can charge $800 or $1,300 or $1,500 or whatever they want to fix a broken door handle or whatever else that fails in the car. You have no choice than to suck it up and pay whatever they demand. I and I'm sure other potential owners are not comfortable with the prospect of having a car only Tesla can fix and having to write out a blank check to Tesla whenever something goes wrong.

If these draconian ESA Extended Warranty provisions are not changed, just wait until Tesla owners are faced with the prospect of many thousand dollar repairs and used Tesla buyers who are even more price conscious end up having their ownership experience ruined and start complaining about how expensive it is repair a Tesla. It will needlessly ruin the reputation of what i consider to be the finest automobile company on the planet that is reinventing an industry while also needlessly harming the resale value of vehicles.

There is a better way. Just offer the option to purchase an extended warranty for new and CPO cars and allow what was paid for to be transferred with the car when it is sold. If it costs more to offer a proper extended warranty, just charge more but offer the option as not offering an extended warranty just tells the world that the company is absolutely uncomfortable standing behind the long term reliability or the cost of repairing it even with a $4,000 warranty with a $200 deductible.

The notion that the $4,000 Extended Warranty that someone paid for becomes void when you sell the car to someone else is wrong on so many levels. It is just as wrong as the notion of terminating supercharger access or autopilot capabilities that has been paid for when selling the car.

What has been paid for to add value to the car should stay with the car when selling the car.

Why is this so difficult? Is this such an unreasonable request?

 

[Drivin]

Yep...you nailed it. And I'm in this thread to try to get folks to take a breath. All of us, bashing the hell out of the company we are currently in bed with, is not fruitful.

If you think you are in bed with Tesla, that is a problem.
You didn't get Pano and Air because you were worried about them...guess what? Other people did get them since they trusted Tesla...telling those people they shouldn't bash an objectively bad policy change is a problem.

Many people here blame Elon, but I don't think that is correct.

Elon certainly would like to have had Ranger service work out, few visits to the service center, a Pano that doesn't leak, FW doors delivered earlier, etc.

He sets aspirational messages like delivery time frame, service not a profit (but people forget that doesn't mean that their potentially high cost service doesn't need to break even), and people gobble it up.

But then aspirations and reality collide. The company can power through it by throwing even more money at it, or they can try and..you know...run it like a real business to give investors and future investors more confidence in order to raise more money in the future.

 

[Luclyluciano]

If other companies can offer a transferable warranty and still make a profit.....why can't Tesla .

it's just simply a bonehead move and there's no other way to explain!

 

[Drivin]

If other companies can offer a transferable warranty and still make a profit.....why can't Tesla .

it's just simply a bonehead move and there's no other way to explain!

It is an interesting question.
Tesla has been very negative on the "traditional" approach where service centers make so much money off the customers.

Yet the traditional companies are able to cost effectively offer something that Tesla is unwilling to offer. Is it possible that Tesla isn't offering it because they don't want to make money? That they determined that the customer is better off NOT buying it. That is certainly taking a different approach.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

Let me be clear - I love my Tesla's, and I love the company and its disruptive approach to the market, maybe the posting of new ESA's was a mistake for those of use that bought them at time of purchase back in 2013.

Drivin has a good point about the balance of between customer and investor confidence, hell half of us on here are investors. I want to see the company succeed and I'm not sure pinning all the problems on Elon is always accurate. Good managers present the facts to senior leader - and give the information that allows them to make good decisions.

I'm not sure that is happening in this case, there could be pressure from the CFO to cut costs and equal pressure from legal to eliminate risk. In this case it looks like the bean counters and the risk managers are voicing their concerns and the customer will now take on more risk, which in turn should reduce finance risk to the stock, or it could see a reverse, for example a huge drop in sales.

Bottom line my service experience has always been awesome and I would be willing to pay to keep it that way with an insurance policy. Sorry if it sounds like I am "Henny Penny - the sky is falling", that is not what I really believe is going on - hopefully "he with Big Hairy Audacious Goals" will set one for car industry to follow. Please continue to be a leader not a follower.

 

[Spidy]

Yep...you nailed it. And I'm in this thread to try to get folks to take a breath. All of us, bashing the hell out of the company we are currently in bed with, is not fruitful. The ESA at $4,000 and a $200/visit deductible is not a good deal. The parts that are out of warranty that seem vulnerable are few. (I intentionally did not get the Pano nor the air suspension as I viewed them as really expensive and vulnerable systems...those two are concerning and concerns are valid). It's an electric car. Electric cars have so few systems. The software is as bullet-proof as anything I have ever used. The motor and battery are all covered 8 years unlimited miles. With all that said, the ESA is not a good deal. That you can't transfer something that is not all that good, may not be all that bad.

I understand the angst. And I understand many owners trade every couple of years making depreciation a real consideration. And this is not good for depreciation. But my hunch is, these cars will prove very reliable between 50k and 100k miles. Build-bugs will get worked out in the original B2B warranty, and the second 50k miles will be largely uneventful. That's my hunch. It's also my prayer I guess.

Suffice to say, TMC users bashing Tesla is not doing anything positive for resale. That much is for certain. Is the TMC thread doing more harm than the change in policy? Maybe. Something to think about.

The ESA is a way to reduce risk. Just like insurance. For a lot of people it might not pay off, but considering that the cars can't really be serviced by anyone apart from Tesla, we have zero information about how cars do over 4-8 years, know little about warranty repair costs the ESA puts a fixed price on this risk. You know it's $4000 and $200 per visit and that's it. There won't be a $10000 bill waiting for you. A owner buying a used Model S with ESA knows he won't have thousand of Dollars in repair costs over the next 1-4 years.

Just wait until the used and CPO Model S market grows as more 2014 and 2015 cars get sold (years with big production volume). Wait for the Model 3 which probably comes new with a 4 year warranty and looks like a much better deal than a Model S without. Wait until there is more competition in the EV market and people who want a long range EV don't have to buy a Tesla Model S.

 

[bhzmark]

Instead of allowing transfer of ESA they provide for a pro rata refund. I don't see this as a big deal.

This was probably done to make sure that Stewart Alsop can't buy a used Tesla with an ESA.

It also might push more sellers and buyers of used Teslas to sell and buy through the CPO program.

 

[HankLloydRight]

Instead of allowing transfer of ESA they provide for a pro rata refund. I don't see this as a big deal.

Pro-rated, but also less the cost of any repairs already done, which is slimy. If it was straight pro-rated by time, I'd feel better about those terms, but if you go in for even a few repairs, you could eat up most of the $4k and get very little, if any, back by terminating the ESA.