lunitiks
Cool James & Black Teacher
Remember when AP1 was released and it took them about a year before releasing it? Okay so AP2 has taken longer but in about a year they have replaced what MobileEye developed over 5+ years.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Remember when AP1 was released and it took them about a year before releasing it? Okay so AP2 has taken longer but in about a year they have replaced what MobileEye developed over 5+ years.
You know that is interesting because I remember Vulcans being smarter than that. I guess everything is getting dumbed down now where you can't even count on a Vulcan to understand something basic.
Best post on this forum in a long, long time
This wouldn't be a breach of contract claim. The contract has nothing to do with anything. That's a red herring. Any claim would be based outside the contract on consumer protection grounds. Tesla has no viable response.
We've had this discussion before. Volvo didn't learn and now is on the wrong end. Tesla is similarly vulnerable.
http://www.siprut.com/gallery/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Law360-Volvo-article.pdf
Basically, most of the legal argument surrounding contract law is useless. Consumer fraud laws are very clear in a lot of states and Tesla is in trouble if they think they can keep on ignoring customers and failing to deliver.
The language about software validation and regulatory approval won't work to protect Tesla because their software validation efforts would need to be proven and that they submitted the system for regulatory approval and the reason for the denial.
If it is based, in any way, on deficient hardware. Tesla is F'd. They said repeatedly that AP2 cars have all the hardware necessary for FSD. Even @Canuck seems to think AP2 is deficient in a way Tesla did not disclaim (e.g. hardware deficiency) but somehow he concludes that the parol evidence rule would prohibit evidence on that but it will not apply in a consumer fraud context nor does it apply where the four corners are ambiguous and outside information is needed to fairly read the contract. The Four Corners rule is not implemented by many states anymore, it is an anachronistic rule that is no longer strictly enforced unless the contract has an integration clause and is not a form contract (contract of adhesion). Tesla's are 100% contracts of adhesion as they cannot be negotiated and its a company selling something to a consumer.
TLDR: No one should be dissuaded from seeking legal relief just because someone on the internet says you can't or shouldn't or it'd be a waste of time. Consult a real attorney who knows the particular laws of your state/country/judicial region and can advise you of the specific remedies available to you.
Illinois has a very strong consumer protection law that explicitly applies regardless of intent of the "fraudulent" party (fraud being a term that has also greatly departed from its common law roots and therefore I believe @Canuck 's analysis is similarly dated and inapplicable).
And yes, I understand that in the case above it was merely winning a MTD rather than an actual judgment. I also know that statutory claims that are adequately pled succeed in astounding rates as there are few defenses available if you lose a MTD. Facts are facts and the statute is clear. Volvo is ****ed.
Bottom line: Tesla would be wise to reach out and explain where they are in their development, what they intend to do for customers who have purchased EAP and/or FSD, and what compensation they intend to give to customers who have been misled by their extraordinarily deceptive FSD videos and statements.
With some communication, maybe people won't bother to sue if they appreciate why there have been delays, what a reasonable new timeframe is, and why Tesla keeps over-promising so badly and failing to acknowledge their failures and make amends.
This wouldn't be a breach of contract claim. The contract has nothing to do with anything. That's a red herring. Any claim would be based outside the contract on consumer protection grounds. Tesla has no viable response.
We've had this discussion before. Volvo didn't learn and now is on the wrong end. Tesla is similarly vulnerable.
http://www.siprut.com/gallery/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Law360-Volvo-article.pdf
Basically, most of the legal argument surrounding contract law is useless. Consumer fraud laws are very clear in a lot of states and Tesla is in trouble if they think they can keep on ignoring customers and failing to deliver.
The language about software validation and regulatory approval won't work to protect Tesla because their software validation efforts would need to be proven and that they submitted the system for regulatory approval and the reason for the denial.
If it is based, in any way, on deficient hardware. Tesla is F'd. They said repeatedly that AP2 cars have all the hardware necessary for FSD. Even @Canuck seems to think AP2 is deficient in a way Tesla did not disclaim (e.g. hardware deficiency) but somehow he concludes that the parol evidence rule would prohibit evidence on that but it will not apply in a consumer fraud context nor does it apply where the four corners are ambiguous and outside information is needed to fairly read the contract. The Four Corners rule is not implemented by many states anymore, it is an anachronistic rule that is no longer strictly enforced unless the contract has an integration clause and is not a form contract (contract of adhesion). Tesla's are 100% contracts of adhesion as they cannot be negotiated and its a company selling something to a consumer.
TLDR: No one should be dissuaded from seeking legal relief just because someone on the internet says you can't or shouldn't or it'd be a waste of time. Consult a real attorney who knows the particular laws of your state/country/judicial region and can advise you of the specific remedies available to you.
Illinois has a very strong consumer protection law that explicitly applies regardless of intent of the "fraudulent" party (fraud being a term that has also greatly departed from its common law roots and therefore I believe @Canuck 's analysis is similarly dated and inapplicable).
And yes, I understand that in the case above it was merely winning a MTD rather than an actual judgment. I also know that statutory claims that are adequately pled succeed in astounding rates as there are few defenses available if you lose a MTD. Facts are facts and the statute is clear. Volvo is ****ed.
Bottom line: Tesla would be wise to reach out and explain where they are in their development, what they intend to do for customers who have purchased EAP and/or FSD, and what compensation they intend to give to customers who have been misled by their extraordinarily deceptive FSD videos and statements.
With some communication, maybe people won't bother to sue if they appreciate why there have been delays, what a reasonable new timeframe is, and why Tesla keeps over-promising so badly and failing to acknowledge their failures and make amends.
The entire issue I have with the FSD package is that Tesla doesn't make any promises with it. Sure there may have been promises made by sales people, but nothing that I see as official from Tesla's website or official communications. A teaser video and a few blurbs don't count for a whole lot.
There is no clear definition of what FSD is.
There is no clear time frame of when to expect it. Tesla can't be be late because there is no target date to miss. Elon has only mentioned vague dates for testing the cross country trip. That date they missed, and the most Elon said was it looked like he now has egg on his face.
Everything regarding the package was vague, and is still vague. On the Volvo case there was a very clear, and testable promise. Where the car simply failed to match specifications as delivered. So it seems like a really clear cut case.
So to add to what you said I hope they will at least at least give all HW2/HW2.5 owners something concrete on the expectations for FSD, and to solidify the unofficial promise of upgrading the current hardware if it isn't up to the task. To also clarify whether that includes all HW2/HW2.5 cars or just those cars where the driver got the FSD package.
They also need to give refunds for the FSD to those who wish to clean their hands of it. That way they can remove that liability because it's likely only a handful of people. From what I've seen most FSD buyers (on this site) are Tesla fans that did it more to support Tesla than actual expectations that the car would be full self-driving.
If I was Elon I'd also be concerned about the loss of credibility as time goes on with this FSD mess still out there. Right at a critical time for Tesla, and in other ventures he's into. Especially those that are heavily involved with credibility (like anything with regulations, hyperloop, etc).
Tesla made tons of promises with FSD capability (it's still says I'll be able to ride-hail my Model S...yea right) but they didn't make a promise of time; Other than Elon saying we should have seen some FSD features starting 6-9 months ago. I understand my AP2.0 may never have FSD but I expect Tesla will make it right when they finally admit it can't be done. I see a lot of pressure coming Tesla's way next year, if the Chevy Cruise AV is approved by "the regulators."
The entire issue I have with the FSD package is that Tesla doesn't make any promises with it.
they didn't make a promise of time; Other than Elon saying we should have seen some FSD features starting 6-9 months ago
Please show me the "second, redundant, power steering motor". I see none
It’s in the emergency responder guide:
https://jalopnik.com/this-key-part-is-a-big-step-towards-a-fully-autonomous-1818674689
It’s in the emergency responder guide:
https://jalopnik.com/this-key-part-is-a-big-step-towards-a-fully-autonomous-1818674689
In addition to the article, when I mentioned it to several techs this week, they corroborated it.
Yes.This wouldn't be a breach of contract claim. The contract has nothing to do with anything. That's a red herring. Any claim would be based outside the contract on consumer protection grounds. Tesla has no viable response.
We've had this discussion before. Volvo didn't learn and now is on the wrong end. Tesla is similarly vulnerable.
http://www.siprut.com/gallery/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Law360-Volvo-article.pdf
Basically, most of the legal argument surrounding contract law is useless. Consumer fraud laws are very clear in a lot of states and Tesla is in trouble if they think they can keep on ignoring customers and failing to deliver.
The language about software validation and regulatory approval won't work to protect Tesla because their software validation efforts would need to be proven and that they submitted the system for regulatory approval and the reason for the denial.
If it is based, in any way, on deficient hardware. Tesla is F'd. They said repeatedly that AP2 cars have all the hardware necessary for FSD. Even @Canuck seems to think AP2 is deficient in a way Tesla did not disclaim (e.g. hardware deficiency) but somehow he concludes that the parol evidence rule would prohibit evidence on that but it will not apply in a consumer fraud context nor does it apply where the four corners are ambiguous and outside information is needed to fairly read the contract. The Four Corners rule is not implemented by many states anymore, it is an anachronistic rule that is no longer strictly enforced unless the contract has an integration clause and is not a form contract (contract of adhesion). Tesla's are 100% contracts of adhesion as they cannot be negotiated and its a company selling something to a consumer.
TLDR: No one should be dissuaded from seeking legal relief just because someone on the internet says you can't or shouldn't or it'd be a waste of time. Consult a real attorney who knows the particular laws of your state/country/judicial region and can advise you of the specific remedies available to you.
Illinois has a very strong consumer protection law that explicitly applies regardless of intent of the "fraudulent" party (fraud being a term that has also greatly departed from its common law roots and therefore I believe @Canuck 's analysis is similarly dated and inapplicable).
And yes, I understand that in the case above it was merely winning a MTD rather than an actual judgment. I also know that statutory claims that are adequately pled succeed in astounding rates as there are few defenses available if you lose a MTD. Facts are facts and the statute is clear. Volvo is ****ed.
Bottom line: Tesla would be wise to reach out and explain where they are in their development, what they intend to do for customers who have purchased EAP and/or FSD, and what compensation they intend to give to customers who have been misled by their extraordinarily deceptive FSD videos and statements.
With some communication, maybe people won't bother to sue if they appreciate why there have been delays, what a reasonable new timeframe is, and why Tesla keeps over-promising so badly and failing to acknowledge their failures and make amends.
I don't see it. I see a motor on one side, and the steering column input on the other.
Can you include a link to the page this was posted on for those interested? Namely me!This PM_YOUR_NIPS_PAPER was also an interesting comment on the coast-to-coast:
View attachment 277698
it's in the now deleted reddit post (so you cannot see the actual starting message): Rumor/Speculation: Tesla has completed the Coast to Coast FSD trip with 30 human interventions • r/teslamotorsCan you include a link to the page this was posted on for those interested? Namely me!