Lawfirm seeking for class action participants

[hill]

The problem with giving up EAP in return for a refund is that Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Keeping Assistance are now so common across many makes and models, even at lower price levels. A ~$100k car without them is an anachronism.

you mean I could have purchased a Prius for less than ⅓ the cost of our AP2 X, and it (collision avoidance, lane keep assist, etc) would have worked right out of the box? No way !! Certainly the prius owners weren't expecting it to work though - right?

.

 

[mmd]

Not sure how reading comprehension is involved in watching a fake self driving video without any written disclaimers. Amazing that you fail to see how Tesla has caused customers monetary harm.

I think the video had a sub title like "The driver is in the car for regulatory purposes only. He is not touching the steering wheel or brakes". Or something similar. May be, the poster is referring to comprehending this when watching the video?

Too bad Tesla is too shy now to keep the video on their website. Wonder if there is a copy somewhere. The lawyers probably have saved a copy to show. That video was front and center on the ordering page for months.

Edit: OK, found the video on youtube! Somebody needs to save it for future
ALSO NOTE, how the title says that it is a "Full Self Driving" demonstration?

 

[oktane]

I think the video had a sub title like "The driver is in the car for regulatory purposes only. He is not touching the steering wheel or brakes". Or something similar. May be, the poster is referring to comprehending this when watching the video?.

LOL that's so true. Conveniently, what the intro text didn't say is "This video is our fantasy of what we hope our cars may one day do. The driver is in the car ONLY to make sure the car doesn't crash into other cars, business, houses, or kill pedestrians, and to intervene every 30 seconds when requiring disengagement."

 

[lunitiks]

Too bad Tesla is too shy now to keep the video on their website. Wonder if there is a copy somewhere. The lawyers probably have saved a copy to show. That video was front and center on the ordering page for months.

What are u talking about? The video is on two of Teslas pages:
Model S | Tesla
Autopilot

 

[bhzmark]

I think the video had a sub title like "The driver is in the car for regulatory purposes only. He is not touching the steering wheel or brakes". Or something similar. May be, the poster is referring to comprehending this when watching the video?

Too bad Tesla is too shy now to keep the video on their website. Wonder if there is a copy somewhere. The lawyers probably have saved a copy to show. That video was front and center on the ordering page for months.

Edit: OK, found the video on youtube! Somebody needs to save it for future
ALSO NOTE, how the title says that it is a "Full Self Driving" demonstration?

View attachment 223734

Perfect example of Tesla buyers with poor reading comprehension, oblivious to clear English statements, and sloppy thinking. Alas the world is full of consumers like this. And they never realize how stupid they are. And now Tesla has to deal with them as customers --- and market to the lowest common denominator. That's the lesson Tesla needs to learn.

 

[lunitiks]

The Electrek article is wrong or misleading on several points:

References to the suit being by "a few" Tesla owners shows a misunderstanding of the Class Action process. Even in classes with millions of members there are always just a few "named plaintiffs" with which the process begins.

I'm not used to US class action process, but you seem to be correct. At least, no one can at this point say that there is only 3 and will only be 3 plaintiffs. Please read paragraph 83-87 of the compaint. The law firm gives the impression that the class action will include "thousands" of members, but they do not know exactly how many until they receive Teslas "books and records".
Again, the complaint is available in here:
A few Tesla owners filed a class-action lawsuit over the rollout of Tesla Autopilot 2.0 [Updated]

EDIT: PDF-version here:
https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/tesla_ap2/teslaclassactioncomplaint.pdf

 

[lunitiks]

This is an interesting claim:

COUNT V
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Tesla has benefitted from selling and leasing defective cars whose value was artificially inflated by Tesla’s concealment of the defective AP2.0 system at a profit, and Plaintiff and the Colorado class have overpaid for the cars and been forced to pay other costs.
Thus, all Colorado class members conferred a benefit on Tesla.
It is inequitable for Tesla to retain these benefits.
Plaintiff and the Colorado class were not aware of the true facts about the Affected Vehicles and did not benefit from Tesla’s conduct.
Tesla knowingly accepted the benefits of its unjust conduct.
As a result of Tesla’s conduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged, in an amount according to proof.

 

[mmd]

What are u talking about? The video is on two of Teslas pages:
Model S | Tesla
Autopilot

OK, my bad for this one It used to be on top of the page. Now, it is lower down; so I missed it. Thanks for the correction,
Although, there seems to be a few changes. Like the title now says "Full Self-Driving Hardware on your Model S".

 

[bhzmark]

This is an interesting claim:.
COUNT V. UNJUST ENRICHMENT.

Interesting only insofar as it shows how stupid Steve Berman and his scriveners are.

Action Not Available if there is a Contract: Unjust enrichment is an action in quasi-contract, which does not lie when an enforceable, binding agreement exists defining the rights of the parties. See Paracor Finance v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 96 F.3d 1151, 1167 (9th Cir. 1996). Unjust Enrichment | California Litigation Guide

These are just the sorts of scumbags who lie with the facts and the law in their complaints.

 

[hill]

".... does not lie when an enforceable, binding agreement exist ... "

While regurgitating 1st-year law student contract principles, one might consider the substantive word above ... ie; enforceable. If a judge rules that buyers didn't bargain for a service/product that they can't even use for 3 ... 4 ... 5 ... (or God only knows how many more) months - then guess what ... magic words? contracts may be 'voidable' ... unenforceable? non-binding? Pretty simple. One doesnt need to shepherdize black letter law nor cite cases to get it - and rattling off legal definitions doesn't make their legal reps skumbags. In fact, quite the contrary because when it comes to name-calling, that's usually a last ditch effort used when one's view has no merit. Don't get me wrong - I want tesla to succeed - but that requires them to do what's right ... take the high road ... & that means operate without a hint of impropriety. That's not easy when the competition may not play by the same standard .
.

 

[bhzmark]

You confuse "regurgitating" with citing directly on point law.

You confuse the remedy of voidability vs damages for breach of representation.

Name calling, when well supported by facts and evidence, is truth telling.

These lawyers drafted a stupid and mistaken and losing brief. Sad to see them waste their resources when they could be policing the fracking industry or other consumer product sellers whose products really harm people all the time.

They are wasting their time, the court's time and Tesla's time when all those parties time would be better spent doing something productive instead of dealing with this stupid law suit. They are scumbags.

While regurgitating 1st-year law student contract principles, one might consider the substantive word above ... ie; enforceable. If a judge rules that buyers didn't bargain for a service/product that they can't even use for 3 ... 4 ... 5 ... (or God only knows how many more) months - then guess what ... magic words? contracts may be 'voidable' ... unenforceable? non-binding? Pretty simple. One doesnt need to shepherdize black letter law nor cite cases to get it - and rattling off legal definitions doesn't make their legal reps skumbags. In fact, quite the contrary because when it comes to name-calling, that's usually a last ditch effort used when one's view has no merit. Don't get me wrong - I want tesla to succeed - but that requires them to do what's right ... take the high road ... & that means operate without a hint of impropriety. That's not easy when the competition may not play by the same standard .
.

 

[Just a Reader]

As a non-native speaker of English I would like to thank all participants in this discussion for giving me new insights into this fascinating language.

Up to now I thought that a large company saying "we expect to ship this product in December" translates into "we have taken all the steps reasonably required to be able to ship this product in December (or at least thereabouts)". Now I have learned that it may also mean "we hope to have a miracle happen to have a product to ship in December" or "somehow our employees will develop superhuman abilities to provide a product by December".
I also learned that what used to be called at best "dodgy business practises" and at worst "fraudulent" may now also be called "running a successful "tech"-company".

Again, thank you all for this valuable language lesson.

 

[bhzmark]

This thread is about a legal issue. Keep learning the distinction between enforcable legal promise, and statement of expectation. Disappointed =/ legal right to damages.

As a non-native speaker of English I would like to thank all participants in this discussion for giving me new insights into this fascinating language.

Up to now I thought that a large company saying "we expect to ship this product in December" translates into "we have taken all the steps reasonably required to be able to ship this product in December (or at least thereabouts)". Now I have learned that it may also mean "we hope to have a miracle happen to have a product to ship in December" or "somehow our employees will develop superhuman abilities to provide a product by December".
I also learned that what used to be called at best "dodgy business practises" and at worst "fraudulent" may now also be called "running a successful "tech"-company".

Again, thank you all for this valuable language lesson.

 

[Just a Reader]

This thread is about a legal issue. Keep learning the distinction between enforcable legal promise, and statement of expectation. Disappointed =/ legal right to damages.

Laymen blowing a lot of hot air about legal issues is usually of very limited value. This is even more so when different jurisdictions are involved.
Usually these statements amount to nothing more than what people believe the law to be, not what the law is. For the time being I rate the opinion of a law firm that has been highly successful in proceedings against large companies higher than the opinion of people in a fan forum who can't see their favourite brand as being in the wrong, thanks.

 

[bhzmark]

Their complaint is not a legal opinion. It is an advocacy piece. It is an attempt to extort money from Tesla.

Laymen blowing a lot of hot air about legal issues is usually of very limited value. This is even more so when different jurisdictions are involved.
Usually these statements amount to nothing more than what people believe the law to be, not what the law is. For the time being I rate the opinion of a law firm that has been highly successful in proceedings against large companies higher than the opinion of people in a fan forum who can't see their favourite brand as being in the wrong, thanks.

 

[Just a Reader]

As a well established law firm you do not tend to go to court against a large corporation with something that's completely spurious. Disputable maybe, but not completely against facts and/or the law.
That you call it an "attempt to extort" is rather telling.

 

[Tangible]

As a non-native speaker of English I would like to thank all participants in this discussion for giving me new insights into this fascinating language.

You're too modest. You seem to be handling English quite well. [Vladimir Nabokov, one of the greatest twentieth century novelists, didn't start writing in English until middle age, so clearly one can overcome late arrival to a language. ]

Some guy on this forum repeatedly posts diatribes about owners with "poor reading comprehension". This reflects, I think, a failure to understand the principle of caveat emptor. The buyer must beware not because it is his responsibility to research every claim, but because there are unscrupulous vendors who may try to defraud him. The solution is to deal with vendors who act in good faith. Tesla is clearly not currently meeting this standard.

 

[NerdUno]

TIP: When reading personal opinions on this forum, look first at the Messages count of the poster. If the number is above 1,000, assume the opinions are being spewed by a diehard AP1 Fanboy with no law degree and not the slightest idea what AP2 purchasers were promised or are presently enduring now that the top three members of the autopilot development group at Tesla have all bailed.

 

[lunitiks]

Who's first to change their nick to Diehard AP1 Fanboy With No Law Degree and Not The Slightest Idea What AP2 Purchasers Are Presently Enduring?

 

[bonnie]

Who's first to change their nick to Diehard AP1 Fanboy With No Law Degree and Not The Slightest Idea What AP2 Purchasers Are Presently Enduring?

I'm AP2 & not *enduring* anything. To the contrary, I am enjoying the hell out of my X.