How to sue Tesla over historical claims

[gearchruncher]

Ouch, the amortization really kills it then. Sounds like it's probably not worth the hassle unless I still own the car like 10 years from now and Tesla somehow never delivers the features.

Not saying that's the only way to calculate it, so feel free to come up with a more aggressive version. Just pointing out that when you buy something for a car it's not only useful for a year, so you are unlikely to win an argument claiming 60% of $6000 after a year.

There are people that paid $5000 for FSD 6 years ago that still have literally nothing for it, so at least you have it better than many!

 

[gtg465x]

Not saying that's the only way to calculate it, so feel free to come up with a more aggressive version. Just pointing out that when you buy something for a car it's not only useful for a year, so you are unlikely to win an argument claiming 60% of $6000 after a year.

There are people that paid $5000 for FSD 6 years ago that still have literally nothing for it, so at least you have it better than many!

To be honest, I did buy EAP mostly for Navigate on Autopilot and Auto Lane Change, which work already, but I will be disappointed if Autopark and both Summon features don't become available sometime this year. I know people say they don't work well anyways... but still, I want them!

 

[TunaBug]

You have legal ground- no reasonable consumer would interpret "short period of time" on a car purchase to be 10 years for instance. But would a judge call 1 year "short"? That's the unknown.

However, we do have Contra proferentem:

This means that Tesla is the one that left ambiguity in the contract. This actually goes against them, as they could have listed a much more definite timeframe. Because they left it ambiguous, if you disagree with them and it ends up in court, one method that can be used to decide is that because Tesla wrote the contract, they should bear the impact of it being poorly written.

The thing is defining damages.
Here's one method: Say Tesla has not delivered 3 of the 5 EAP features in 2 years. Well, let's say a car lasts about 10 years. So you can amortize your $6K to 600 a year. But you got 40% of the features, so 60% a year is $360. So your damages might be $720 after two years.

I disagree with your approach to figuring damages, but to be clear, IANAL.

I would ask for the whole thing back. Even if I was in a state that limits small claims proceeds to $5000, I would ask for $6000 hoping for a moral victory of $6000 that the judge would have to clip at $5000. Even if the clerk at the desk wont let you file the paperwork with a large number I would still tell the judge I wanted 6 but understand it's limited to 5.

Who is to say what the important features are? That's up to each individual consumer. Maybe I bought it specifically for parking and don't give a crap about the rest of the feature list? The importance and value of a feature to a consumer has nothing to do with the engineering complexity behind it. If it did, companies wouldn't put so much effort into cup holders.

I don't understand the amortization either. Why? I don't know if (much less why) a judge would do that, but why the heck would you go in proposing that? I can understand (but disagree with) the idea of 3 of 5 features not delivered so only asking for 3/5 of the price being refunded, but not the amortization.

But that makes me wonder: perhaps you have a better chance of winning if asking for the FULL refund. If the judge decides you deserve 3/5 and not 5/5 then he'll do the arithmetic and tell you what that is; but I would worry about there being precedence about feature bundles supporting an all or nothing approach to the bundle. And I think that's reasonable in this case: it is not like Tesla will deliver some but not all of the features: they're bundled in the firmware (or the config setting), tested together, not separately, etc. You have the package or you don't. But to be clear, I would ask for $6000 expecting that if I won then Tesla would downgrade my care to have no EAP features at all.

 

[MP3Mike]

Who is to say what the important features are?

Tesla does, they actually have to as part of their financial accounting. They can't recognize the revenue for the features that haven't been delivered, so they have assigned a valuation for each item, and put the amount for features yet to be delivered into a reserve account to be recognized when they are delivered in the future.

I don't understand the amortization either. Why?

Because that is a generally accepted method. I agree with his general idea, but for example, NOA would likely be valued much more than summon.

I think the point is to get damages for the period of time that you don't have the features. Not be for buyer's remorse to "return" the option. (You sort of can't make your claim until the features are delivered so that you know how much to ask for in damages.)

 

[doeboynmek]

Submitted my complaint and paid my filings fee in small claims today, alleging damages for an invoice given to me estimating $1k for the install of HW 3.0 for the FSD subscription.

Evidence provided is the tweet by Tesla on 4/22/19 stating that cars manufactured after 4/22 will have HW 3.0 and Elon also stating that same day that all vehicles have the necessary hardware to have FSD.

 

[doeboynmek]

So I had my day in court, Tesla was never served even though their representative was dictated in the complaint, anyone have any advice here? the case got continued until I can serve Tesla.

 

[gearchruncher]

So I had my day in court, Tesla was never served even though their representative was dictated in the complaint, anyone have any advice here?

What do you mean Tesla was never served? Every state is different, but in my state and many others I know of, it's YOUR responsibility to serve the defendant. It doesn't magically happen because you filed a complaint. You're lucky you got a continuance until they are served. So now you follow the service instructions I assume the court gave you.

 

[JHCCAZ]

What do you mean Tesla was never served? Every state is different, but in my state and many others I know of, it's YOUR responsibility to serve the defendant. It doesn't magically happen because you filed a complaint. You're lucky you got a continuance until they are served. So now you follow the service instructions I assume the court gave you.

It must be frustrating for you, trying to lead the unwashed through the Halls of Justice, and they keep bumping into the door frames.

 

[Tim B.]

I just wanted to give the community an update on my case and some advice since you all have been so helpful. I filed the small claims suite about 3 months ago and served Tesla's registered agent in California, CT Corporation (see previous message) by registered mail. CT Corporation will not sign for registered mail. I think they know that all the registered mail they get is for lawsuits so they don't want to make it easy for you. I had to postpone my case and use a process service to do it at a cost of $75. About a week after they were served with the process server, I got a call from Tesla resolution center and they offered a fair settlement offer so I took it without going to trial. So advice for anyone suing Tesla in California; Don't use registered mail. Pay for a process server. You can ask for the fees to be reimbursed if you win the case.

 

[Tim B.]

So I had my day in court, Tesla was never served even though their representative was dictated in the complaint, anyone have any advice here? the case got continued until I can serve Tesla.

What state are you in? Who did you list as their registered agent? How did you attempt to serve them or did you?

 

[gearchruncher]

CT Corporation will not sign for registered mail.

CT Corp in WA signed for mine without issue. I must have gotten a disgruntled employee I'll admit the judge did actually say "wow, they signed it?" At the same time it was signed for with a stamp that has the date on it, so I assumed that they did this all day long.

Given registered mail is cheap, you might want to try it first before a process server.

 

[Tim B.]

CT Corp in WA signed for mine without issue. I must have gotten a disgruntled employee I'll admit the judge did actually say "wow, they signed it?" At the same time it was signed for with a stamp that has the date on it, so I assumed that they did this all day long.

Given registered mail is cheap, you might want to try it first before a process server.

It probably depends on what state you are in. The risk you run with using registered mail is just delaying your trial and some additional paperwork. Registered mail was $15 and a process server was $75. For the extra $60 I would rather have it done with, especially since you will get it back if you win your case. Again, this was my experience in CA, so in other states like WA it might be fine.

 

[TunaBug]

If you go the registered mail route (and I am not recommending that over a process server):

• Use the tracking yourself to see if delivery was successful. The post office should return the parcel promptly if it was declined, but sometimes that can take multiple weeks and you don't want to lose that time when you could instead be sending a process server.
• Some judges/states might not like the idea of a printout from usps.com showing the electronic copy of the signature. So "splurge" for the signature return card so that you have a physical document with a signature for the judge. The physical Return Receipt is $3.35, only $1.25 more than the electronic signature. And as others have said, you can be awarded compensation for this if you win.

My wife's first trip to small claims (King County, WA) she had somebody served via FedEx. She went in with a printout from the fedex web site showing the signature. The judge told the defendant that this did not constitute proper proof of service, and he gave the defendant the option of delaying the case until he was properly served. Fortunately the defendant chose to just get it over with, but he could have delayed it out of spite.

 

[gearchruncher]

My wife's first trip to small claims (King County, WA) she had somebody served via FedEx.

Awesome that she's using small claims, but it's pretty clear from the King County instructions that FedEx would never be accepted, and that you MUST get the physical return receipt. None of this should be a mystery to anyone filing, they give you a packet with explicit instructions:

Service means one of the following:
• The Notice of Small claim and documents in the service packet are handed directly to the Defendant.
• The Notice of Small Claim and documents in the service packet are handed directly to a responsible person of appropriate age, at the Defendant’s home. That person must reside at the Defendant’s home.
• The Notice of Small Claim is sent either by certified or registered mail with restricted delivery only. The return card must have the DEFENDANT’S signature on it.
• The Sheriff’s office or a “Process Server” can be hired by you to help you serve.

 

[TunaBug]

Awesome that she's using small claims, but it's pretty clear from the King County instructions that FedEx would never be accepted, and that you MUST get the physical return receipt. None of this should be a mystery to anyone filing, they give you a packet with explicit instructions:

Yes, you are correct. The moral of the story is that you should not assume that you can decide on your own that something is functionally equivalent or what constitutes "good enough". In this case she got away with it (and won the case), but it could just as easily have gone wrong. Thank you for copy/pasting the actual rules. For everybody else: you need to use the rules that apply to you!

TLDR: RTFM!

 

[dgatwood]

The timing of this might be why they finally decided to start rolling out FSD beta on MCU1 about two or three weeks later.

 

[hooty]

Congrats. Just make sure you don’t plan on buying a Tesla in the future. Paying out a judgment to you might put you on a blacklist.

Absolute rubbish. Personal experience

 

[MP3Mike]

Absolute rubbish. Personal experience

At least one person was added to the Tesla "do not sell to" list after they went through a vehicle buy-back. Others have gotten added for violating the no purchases for resale clause of the order agreement.

So while it doesn't always happen, it might in some cases.

 

[gearchruncher]

I'm on the Tesla do not sell to list supposedly after a lemon law buyback.
I bought two cars from them directly within 1 year of being put on that list.
Pretty sure Tesla is way too disorganized to actually be able to enforce that.

 

[Dewg]

I'm on the Tesla do not sell to list supposedly after a lemon law buyback.
I bought two cars from them directly within 1 year of being put on that list.
Pretty sure Tesla is way too disorganized to actually be able to enforce that.

Impressive. You have enough of a nightmare with a Tesla to invoke the lemon law, enough of a problem with hardware upgrades to take them to court, and you still bought more Teslas. You must really like the brand.