Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act

[vfx]

That might explain why they keep losing the law suits they file.

Or maybe the lawsuits are just to bring up a point.

 

[4sevens.com]

Okay, 4sevens, it's not *exactly* the same. But surely you understood his point.

Actually NOT the same... You guys keep missing the point....

Not what I was saying, just pointing to a point of reference where -most- electronics manufactures and other manufactures use similar terminology in their own warranty clauses.

ASE certified versus... SONY certified, Panasonic certified, etc etc

The automotive industry is heavily regulated for good reason - when there is big volume, big $ at stake, theres lots of funny business to be had. Regulations cap those kind of activities and protect the consumers.

Why are there ASE certified mechanics in the first place? Because they went through a training and certification process that validate their work so that they can work on a variety of different brands of cars.... So Lexus can't say, well you didn't come to our dealership to change your oil so your warranty is void... they have to accept work from an ASE certified mechanic - a neutral party thus keeping warranty intact.

- - - Updated - - -

While I would agree that he is getting carried away with his posing, Tesla's legal team is not exactly competent. The only issue I see is GB's post about voiding the warranty if you do not pay the Tesla service costs. I'm sure he is regretting that post and also losing sleep because of it. It was clearly not worded right.

Agreed - either GB spoke out of place (before going through legal) or their legal depart is incompetent - which may eventually cost the company - which trickles down and costs the consumer and shareholders...

 

[bonnie]

The automotive industry is heavily regulated for good reason - when there is big volume, big $ at stake, theres lots of funny business to be had. Regulations cap those kind of activities and protect the consumers.

Why are there ASE certified mechanics in the first place? Because they went through a training and certification process that validate their work so that they can work on a variety of different brands of cars.... So Lexus can't say, well you didn't come to our dealership to change your oil so your warranty is void... they have to accept work from an ASE certified mechanic - a neutral party thus keeping warranty intact.

You've read the warranty, right?

I'm just going to step out of this squabble. I've read it, it's not what it says, but people are going to believe what they want to believe.

 

[shokunin]

Quote from George Blankenship, Chief of Nickel-and-Diming Customers:

I don't think we're the type that needs to stoop down to name calling..

I may disagree with some of the service responses that GeorgeB has provided, but I give him +100000 reps for actually listening and responding. I don't see that too much from anyone else in Tesla. If anything he may have been given wrong information, at which I'm not going to shoot the messenger, but rather the team behind George making and defining policy.

 

[W.Petefish]

I'm with bonnie on this. Y'all play nice.

Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk 2

 

[kevincwelch]

Hi Kevin,
As I understand it neroden did not have a conversation with George, he is merely resurrecting George's original posting.

Really I meant to say his conversation "about" George.

Regardless of what George posted, in my view the actual warranty terms does not prohibit you from having simple routine type service work performed by others. If it did your warranty would be voided by replacing windshield wipers. :wink:

I realize that. Most of what is done or is required by the service plan is not an issue for me. There's just something inherently un-American about the contingency and requirements that irks me. I'm going to do it; I may get the $2400 plan for the Rangers (even though I am near a service center), but there's something about it that causes me to look askance at Tesla. It's probably just the post-purchase agreement issue.

That's all. I think I've reached the limit of what I want/need to say about it.

 

[Beavis]

Not really. I have not agreed to what GB posted and there has to be agreement between parties to have a contract. Each buyer agrees to what is in the purchase contract. That's pretty clear.

 

[rcc]

I'm not a lawyer and even if I was, I'm not trained and up to speed on current M-M case law so I don't consider myself to qualified on what is or isn't a violation of M-M law.

But I have to believe Elon knows when and how to use lawyers. This is a PayPal founder. A SpaceX founder. I'm pretty darn sure that identifying and working around legal issues were and are a huge part of both of these businesses. It seems unlikely that Elon nailed it on the first two companies and suddenly developed incompetence and utterly hosed Tesla on something so basic.

A good example is the dance that Tesla is doing with respect to pricing discussions in the stores and how they collect money. I think it's brilliant. Tesla hasn't done the research into dealer, etc. laws in various states because they don't have to. They've put their legal research efforts into how they can market, sell and deliver a car to 50 states without becoming a car dealer as defined by law. If they're not a dealer then they don't need to worry about all the different state (and likely local) laws that affect car dealers. Brilliant.

So unless someone on this forum is a lawyer and is up to speed on current M-M case law, I suspect this discussion is huge waste of time and energy.

 

[Arnold Panz]

You are wrong....

ASE (automotive service excellence) is a neutral party not affiliated with any automotive company.... VERY different than TESLA Certified.

Also what GM blogged is legally binding - though harder to prove. Even verbal agreements are binding - just hard to prove. When a VP of a company makes a public statement - he is and will be held to his word - unless there is some kind of formal correction after the fact - but he (the company) is liable and responsible for what he said between the statement and the formal correction... if people were misled and decided to put down a reservation or even NOT cancel a reservation because of his statement he and the company has legal liabilities because of it.

4sevens, I'm assuming you're not a lawyer, because what GM [sic -- I assume you mean GeorgeB?] blogged isn't "legally binding" -- it wouldn't be admissible in court under the most generous of judges. I mean, how would you even prove that George Blankenship actually wrote that post? And assuming, arguendo, that it was the real GeorgeB who wrote that post, as kroneal pointed out, there is no "offer and acceptance", which is needed for a contract. Theoretically, one could make a promissory estoppel claim based on the post IF you could prove it was the real George B., but that would require someone to only go to a Tesla mechanic when they could have gone to another one, and then they would only be entitled to the difference in costs....really, there's no legal claim based on GeorgeB's responses to the various questions in the Warranty thread. And I'm highly confident that no lawyer at Tesla is losing sleep over anything written on this issue here.

As to the substantive issue at hand, I don't interpret the warranty to be void simply by taking the car to a non-Tesla certified mechanic. In order for the warranty to be voided, taking the car to a non-certified mechanic would have to cause some problem that Tesla (rightly, in my view) wouldn't want to have to fix after the fact. This is both a reasonable position for Tesla to take, and a legal one under the MMWA.

More generally, for anyone playing lawyer on this site, theoretical questions and hypothetical situations are an interesting intellectual exercise, but until/unless there is applicable, real world implication of anything warranty-related with the Model S, no one (including GeorgeB, the "incompetent" Tesla lawyers, or anyone else at Tesla) has broken the law or done anything wrong. If, for example, GeorgeB's original answer omitted the qualifier that there must be damage to the car, that would make the whole thing perfectly legal under the MMWA, right? Forgetting for a second that that was a blog post on an non-Tesla website by a guy we are pretty sure is George Blankenship, the absence of that qualifier, if added later in official documentation, would obviously trump anything written here and put Tesla on solid footing.

Unlike what most technical/scientist types deal with on a daily basis in their work, the law is much more art than science. There are almost never 100% yes/no or right/wrong answers to things. How many examples have you seen of someone caught "dead to rights" in a case get found not guilty, and you sit in wonder and amazement at the stupidity of the jury? The law deals in shades of gray, and I've seen absolutely nothing that would indicate that Tesla is "dead to rights" on this issue, and to the contrary they've got tons of wiggle room if they need it. The hysteria and "concern" for Tesla is massively overblown, IMHO.

 

[bonnie]

Amen.

 

[Larry Chanin]

As to the substantive issue at hand, I don't interpret the warranty to be void simply by taking the car to a non-Tesla certified mechanic. In order for the warranty to be voided, taking the car to a non-certified mechanic would have to cause some problem that Tesla (rightly, in my view) wouldn't want to have to fix after the fact. This is both a reasonable position for Tesla to take, and a legal one under the MMWA.[...]

The hysteria and "concern" for Tesla is massively overblown, IMHO.

Thanks for another very helpful posting!

Larry

 

[Arnold Panz]

Thanks for another very helpful posting!

Larry

I hope it helps because people can become grossly misinformed by non-lawyers opining on legal issues where they are clearly out of their depth and zones of knowledge.

It's funny how over the years I've had occasion to actually offer an "expert" opinion on one legal issue or another impacting Tesla (mostly lawsuits, unfortunately!). I come to TMC to avoid work issues, not address them directly.

I completely respect the fact that I know nothing about technology and wouldn't think to challenge anyone's knowledge of IT issues, but people have no compunction at all thinking that they can easily determine how the law works in one circumstance or another, when clearly they don't have a clue.