stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Yes there is a option to buy, but most people don't do it because they would rather return the car and get the latest version. That is usually the whole point of leasing (you get to drive a new car every 3 years).
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Lawfirm seeking for class action participants
- Thread starter Matias
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Yes because I won't be turning it in after two years I will get use out of autopilot that many lease owners has lost half of (but paid for)Sooo... If you had leased your car you would join the lawsuit? But since you chose to purchase it, so that you actually own the car, you won't?
Punctuation Jeff. The period at the end of the first sentence concludes that sentence. I'm pissed about all the things in the second sentence but that's the trade off you get for working with a 3 year old car company
NikeWings
Active Member
Class actions are so alluring. It's never about the class, and only about the legal fees.
If the case merits standing, the attorneys will settle, like the majority of classes, to ensure they get their fees. The consumer gets a coupon for a free oil change or whatever. Such a feel good moment.
If the case merits standing, the attorneys will settle, like the majority of classes, to ensure they get their fees. The consumer gets a coupon for a free oil change or whatever. Such a feel good moment.
Exactly. The ABA needs to get ahead of this issue and limit class action attorney fees or contingency fees to a small portion of the work that is directly tied to the hours an attorney reasonably billed on the matter. The entire fight, it seems, for most class actions is about the attorneys fees and not actual remediation for the injured class.
Let's see if these guys even file a complaint. I bet no. Especially now with 8.1.
It is possible that they never even contemplated a real lawsuit. More likely a hedge fund that is short TSLA just paid them to solicit plaintiffs as if they were planning to file a complaint. Desperate short-sellers will do anything. And plaintiff side attys take the easy certain money. Actually representing plaintiffs in this sort of claim is not easy certain money and they must know that it is a loser. But taking money from a hedge fund to pretend that they are is the only rational explanation for a smart firm to do this. The other explanation is that the attorneys are just stupid.
It is possible that they never even contemplated a real lawsuit. More likely a hedge fund that is short TSLA just paid them to solicit plaintiffs as if they were planning to file a complaint. Desperate short-sellers will do anything. And plaintiff side attys take the easy certain money. Actually representing plaintiffs in this sort of claim is not easy certain money and they must know that it is a loser. But taking money from a hedge fund to pretend that they are is the only rational explanation for a smart firm to do this. The other explanation is that the attorneys are just stupid.
@bhzmark - Maybe the simplest explanation is the best? That Tesla clearly made deceptive claims, and it pissed off enough consumers to form a class. I haven't used 8.1 AP enough to comment, but if it's as wonky as the last version simply raising the speed activation limit won't prevent a multi-million settlement against Tesla. You are grossly underestimating the prowess of this firm. No pun intended, but the jury's still out on the 8.1 AP release.
consumers can't just form a class. A court has to certify it, and lawyers have to make the investment to bring it before the court. Here the risk reward as supported by the facts don't support such as investment. And an intelligent law firm will see that. Which is why I bet that they don't file, or don't investment anything beyond the initial filing (which itself is fairly cheap).
The simplest explanation is to assume that desperate hedge funds guys do anything (and often are charged for it) and plaintiffs attys take the easy money. That is the simplest explanation.
Also read the other threads on performance the 8.1 and the damages suffered by the class (to the extent that there were any) just ended.
I am certainly not underestimating the firm. Precisely because I know they only take the easy money, the best explanation is that it is paid PR stunt. that is easy money for the firm.
This is what this firm does. They aren't a fly by nite operation and filing frivolous lawsuits is sanctionable. Further filing suit in the manner you describe is an improper purpose and sanctionable as well. I think this is a legitimate issue but the class action system itself is an issue. Certifying the class won't be an issue I think based on discrete ap2 ownership but I think those that bought in 2017 weren't misled like those that bought in 2016 based on Tesla misrepresentations.
@bhzmark - I understand your point, this is definitely a boon for the lawfirm who will make the most of all. I agree that the court certifies the class, but that won't be hard. The lawfirm likely won't get any money up front and will work on contingency, so they are not doing this to help pull a PR stunt in exchange for cash.
@croman - I think you hit the nail on the head. The class is readily quantifiable as are the damages. Makes for an easy lawsuit to win or settle on behalf of the class.
@croman - I think you hit the nail on the head. The class is readily quantifiable as are the damages. Makes for an easy lawsuit to win or settle on behalf of the class.
The lawsuit is a loser. It isn't likely to be filed. But frivolity isn't a real concern anyway. It wld pass that standard. But even if it is filed it won't go anywhere. Anyone who knows a little bit about the law will see that this is an empty threat that requires an explanation other than a lawfirm thinking they might make money on contingency on this. This is a stupid investment for a law firm on that basis. And only a wise move if they were paid up front by a hedge fund for PR purposes.
systemcrashed
Please Reboot
Tesla was very clear when AP2 was announced. I never felt like the features were presented in a "deceptive" way. As a matter of fact, Tesla specifically stated AP2 would not perform as well as AP1 for several months until realtime data had been collected, it would incrementally get better until it surpassed AP1. After that, then release of full autonomy, which needed even more development and regulatory approval. Anyone who read the press release and had a basic understanding of the English language would not have felt deceived IMHO.
Class actions benefit the attorneys substantially more than the plaintiffs.
Um, yeah, sure. Whatever you say! There are obviously many who disagree with you.
systemcrashed
Please Reboot
Like those attorneys who who benefit from them, and those people who do not have a good grasp of the English language ?!
lunitiks
Cool James & Black Teacher
systemcrashed
Please Reboot
LOL, Maybe? Tony understood everything he was told, just chose not to listen. Besides, he would never drive a Tesla... Not flashy enough.Talkinabaoutamemain?
Last edited:
All I can say on this topic is that when we went to order our MS back in December 2017 it was clear to us that we were choosing "options" and those options were either in the process of being rolled out (EAP) or were future software capability (FSD) goals and would only be available if they could get the government approval after testing but that was something Tesla was committed to working towards. What we understood with both options was that our car would have the hardware already installed and that the software would come along at a later date. If we chose to pay for it now, there was a price break given for early signing on, but we could skip it now and pay for it when it was up and running to our expectations. Expected to cost more if added later but that was our choice. I know from friends/family working in the tech field that software/hardware development timeframes is not a guaranteed thing. Certainly there has been a lot of press over the years that illustrates this.
Clearly there are people out there and on here that expected more sooner and regret having paid for an option that hasn't reached full execution yet. Buyers remorse, thoughts of having a better place to use that money now, whatever. From what I've read and our own buying experience with our Model S, I don't feel Tesla has misled anyone. Some companies talk about planned upcoming changes or products and others are more secretive. Tesla it seems to me likes it's owners and potential owners to know what they can anticipate in the works.
And as you can see from our car info below we chose to get the optional EAP but not the FSD and it was the right decision for us.
Clearly there are people out there and on here that expected more sooner and regret having paid for an option that hasn't reached full execution yet. Buyers remorse, thoughts of having a better place to use that money now, whatever. From what I've read and our own buying experience with our Model S, I don't feel Tesla has misled anyone. Some companies talk about planned upcoming changes or products and others are more secretive. Tesla it seems to me likes it's owners and potential owners to know what they can anticipate in the works.
And as you can see from our car info below we chose to get the optional EAP but not the FSD and it was the right decision for us.
Last edited:
As a late 2016 buyer I was greatly influenced by the statement that EAP was expected to "complete validation" in December, just a few weeks after I committed to the purchase. I inferred from that that all the prerequisite steps - designing the system, writing the code, unit and system test - had already been completed, leaving only "validation", whatever that may be.
Was that said explicitly? No. Was it a reasonable inference? I believe yes.
Before attacking my reading comprehension skills, as seems to be fashionable here, imagine this husband-wife dialog:
-------------------
"Honey, we're going to be late for the show!"
"Stop worrying , I'll be down as soon as I get my earrings on!"
Ah, he thinks to himself. Putting on the earrings is the last thing she does. We'll be on our way in a minute.
Hah, she thinks to herself, rising from the bed. It's a good thing he didn't ask if I've showered, dressed, and done my makeup!
-----------------------
Apologies for the gender stereotyped role play; it was the first thing that came to mind.
My point is: I relied on Tesla to describe the situation accurately before requiring me to commit, rather than use language whose effect, and possibly intent, was to create a false impression about the actual status of these future deliverables.
Was that said explicitly? No. Was it a reasonable inference? I believe yes.
Before attacking my reading comprehension skills, as seems to be fashionable here, imagine this husband-wife dialog:
-------------------
"Honey, we're going to be late for the show!"
"Stop worrying , I'll be down as soon as I get my earrings on!"
Ah, he thinks to himself. Putting on the earrings is the last thing she does. We'll be on our way in a minute.
Hah, she thinks to herself, rising from the bed. It's a good thing he didn't ask if I've showered, dressed, and done my makeup!
-----------------------
Apologies for the gender stereotyped role play; it was the first thing that came to mind.
My point is: I relied on Tesla to describe the situation accurately before requiring me to commit, rather than use language whose effect, and possibly intent, was to create a false impression about the actual status of these future deliverables.
Similar threads
