Maintenance Service Fee

[AC123]

Would you recommend buying the 8 year service plan or the 4 year? I intend to keep the car for 8+ years.

 

[HankLloydRight]

I bought the 8 year plan to lock I'm the cost of each visit at $475. Any remaining visits are transferable to a buyer if you sell the car.

 

[mibaro2]

Would you recommend buying the 8 year service plan or the 4 year? I intend to keep the car for 8+ years.

I bought the 4 year service plan, and am not sure if I will get the extended plan. You can always buy the extended plan before the end of your first 4 years.

 

[AC123]

I bought the 4 year service plan, and am not sure if I will get the extended plan. You can always buy the extended plan before the end of your first 4 years.

Im not taking about extended service with 200 deductible. I'm talking about service visits that are 600 a pop or 1900 per 4.
You can't buy those at the end of 4 years.

 

[mibaro2]

Im not taking about extended service with 200 deductible. I'm talking about service visits that are 600 a pop or 1900 per 4.
You can't buy those at the end of 4 years.

Sorry. Misread. Yes, I would get the 8 visits. That way you can avoid any price increase in the cost of visits.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

And my understanding of the plain language of the Extended Service Agreement is if you don't follow the 12,500 mile interval or one year interval, whichever comes first, the ESA is void. Read it. Far too many of you are taking assurances from emails from some Tesla exec, or verbal assurances from service center people, neither of these having the authority to waive contractual terms of the ESA (which is a CONTRACT not a warranty). That's a recipe for disappointment.

Tesla could solve this by making an official policy statement and modifying language in the ESA and the Prepaid Service Agreements.

Since you're an attorney... if Tesla does not enforce the terms of its own contract, can the contract then be deemed invalid? Can a party to a contract decide, randomly, when it wants to enforce a term of said contract, while still retaining the validity of the contract? At some point, wouldn't Tesla's actions constitute a de-facto amendment to the contract?

 

[rxlawdude]

Since you're an attorney... if Tesla does not enforce the terms of its own contract, can the contract then be deemed invalid? Can a party to a contract decide, randomly, when it wants to enforce a term of said contract, while still retaining the validity of the contract? At some point, wouldn't Tesla's actions constitute a de-facto amendment to the contract?

Sorry for the delay, just back from a short vacation.

"If Tesla does not enforce the terms of its own contract, can the contract ... be deemed invalid?" Possibly. But that would only apply to the individuals with contracts where Tesla doesn't enforce the terms. What Tesla does or doesn't do with other contract holders is irrelevant.
Same answer to your other two questions. Those who have emails from corporate officers contradicting the plain language of its prepaid service and/or ESA MAY have an argument of those terms being waived, but that's far from assured. Tesla would basically state they waived the terms only on a case-by-case basis, and only for "goodwill." A court will likely be skeptical of any deviation from the four corners of the written contract.

Again, Tesla could make this whole situation go away by announcing changes or reiterating the contract terms. Till then, we are in a "twilight zone" of uncertainty.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Sorry for the delay, just back from a short vacation.

"If Tesla does not enforce the terms of its own contract, can the contract ... be deemed invalid?" Possibly. But that would only apply to the individuals with contracts where Tesla doesn't enforce the terms. What Tesla does or doesn't do with other contract holders is irrelevant.
Same answer to your other two questions. Those who have emails from corporate officers contradicting the plain language of its prepaid service and/or ESA MAY have an argument of those terms being waived, but that's far from assured. Tesla would basically state they waived the terms only on a case-by-case basis, and only for "goodwill." A court will likely be skeptical of any deviation from the four corners of the written contract.

Again, Tesla could make this whole situation go away by announcing changes or reiterating the contract terms. Till then, we are in a "twilight zone" of uncertainty.

I agree with your post, especially the last point. I was curious about your overall view, since you are an attorney, and have brought your specific expertise to this discussion. I, too, wish Tesla would simply amend the written documents to reflect these changes in policy. How much could it cost, in the overall scheme of things, to do this? It can't be much.

 

[Andyw2100]

And my understanding of the plain language of the Extended Service Agreement is if you don't follow the 12,500 mile interval or one year interval, whichever comes first, the ESA is void. Read it. Far too many of you are taking assurances from emails from some Tesla exec, or verbal assurances from service center people, neither of these having the authority to waive contractual terms of the ESA (which is a CONTRACT not a warranty). That's a recipe for disappointment.

Tesla could solve this by making an official policy statement and modifying language in the ESA and the Prepaid Service Agreements.

Assuming Tesla did intend to enforce the ESA as written, how do you think the following, which are my real-life circumstances, would apply?

I contacted the SC when the car had about 11,800 miles on it (after about seven months of ownership) in an attempt to schedule the first annual service appointment. The first date offered was about six weeks in the future, which I accepted, but at which time the car will have well over 13,500 miles (12,500 plus the 1000 margin) on it? Do you believe in this situation Tesla could void my ESA?

 

[hingisfan]

Assuming Tesla did intend to enforce the ESA as written, how do you think the following, which are my real-life circumstances, would apply?

I contacted the SC when the car had about 11,800 miles on it (after about seven months of ownership) in an attempt to schedule the first annual service appointment. The first date offered was about six weeks in the future, which I accepted, but at which time the car will have well over 13,500 miles (12,500 plus the 1000 margin) on it? Do you believe in this situation Tesla could void my ESA?

I'm guessing they would have to let you know at the time of appointment, or they would be misleading you.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Why is it that some here have turned Tesla into this evil company that is suddenly going to deny us coverage under the ESA when there is no evidence to support such a hypothesis? I would guess that the community's overall experience with Tesla would seem to go against the conclusions being drawn by some in this thread. Certainly my individual experience would not lead me to believe Tesla will suddenly start acting onerously. But hey, let's just pile on since that's what everyone is doing right now, and let's see how low we can push the stock.

 

[jaguar36]

I rather doubt that Tesla will deny coverage frequently. Mostly because the ESA is already so outrageously expensive.

 

[Andyw2100]

I agree with your post, especially the last point. I was curious about your overall view, since you are an attorney, and have brought your specific expertise to this discussion. I, too, wish Tesla would simply amend the written documents to reflect these changes in policy. How much could it cost, in the overall scheme of things, to do this? It can't be much.

Assuming Tesla did intend to enforce the ESA as written, how do you think the following, which are my real-life circumstances, would apply?

I contacted the SC when the car had about 11,800 miles on it (after about seven months of ownership) in an attempt to schedule the first annual service appointment. The first date offered was about six weeks in the future, which I accepted, but at which time the car will have well over 13,500 miles (12,500 plus the 1000 margin) on it? Do you believe in this situation Tesla could void my ESA?

Why is it that some here have turned Tesla into this evil company that is suddenly going to deny us coverage under the ESA when there is no evidence to support such a hypothesis? I would guess that the community's overall experience with Tesla would seem to go against the conclusions being drawn by some in this thread. Certainly my individual experience would not lead me to believe Tesla will suddenly start acting onerously. But hey, let's just pile on since that's what everyone is doing right now, and let's see how low we can push the stock.

I have to believe this is directed at me, since my post is the only post after your last post in this thread that could in any way be construed as being negative.

Personally I'm not trying to "turn Tesla into an evil company that is suddenly going to deny us coverage." In fact I started my post with the words, "Assuming Tesla did intend to enforce the ESA as written..."

It is a hypothetical question. I'm seeking rxlawdude's opinion, which you also wrote that you were curious about because he was bringing his expertise to the discussion. I'm just trying to figure out if I might need to do something to protect my backside, while I still can, in case it did become an issue in the future.

And I actually do have reason to fear a change in tenor from Tesla because for the moment, I'm still being left hanging on whether or not I'll be paying $639 every time my car needs service, because I live 213 miles from the nearest service center. Tesla's previous policy of $100 ranger service, which I don't have in writing, but under the terms of which I purchased the car, is one that for now at least, they seem to be changing. I'm pretty sure I have no contract that would protect me there.

 

[aja2460]

Why is it that some here have turned Tesla into this evil company that is suddenly going to deny us coverage under the ESA when there is no evidence to support such a hypothesis? I would guess that the community's overall experience with Tesla would seem to go against the conclusions being drawn by some in this thread. Certainly my individual experience would not lead me to believe Tesla will suddenly start acting onerously. But hey, let's just pile on since that's what everyone is doing right now, and let's see how low we can push the stock.

Agree..

My overall experience is that they have gone above and beyond every time that I've had an issue. I have no reason to believe that they are out to screw me.
If they are, they have done a great job of disguising it.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I have to believe this is directed at me, since my post is the only post after your last post in this thread that could in any way be construed as being negative.

Personally I'm not trying to "turn Tesla into an evil company that is suddenly going to deny us coverage." In fact I started my post with the words, "Assuming Tesla did intend to enforce the ESA as written..."

It is a hypothetical question. I'm seeking rxlawdude's opinion, which you also wrote that you were curious about because he was bringing his expertise to the discussion. I'm just trying to figure out if I might need to do something to protect my backside, while I still can, in case it did become an issue in the future.

And I actually do have reason to fear a change in tenor from Tesla because for the moment, I'm still being left hanging on whether or not I'll be paying $639 every time my car needs service, because I live 213 miles from the nearest service center. Tesla's previous policy of $100 ranger service, which I don't have in writing, but under the terms of which I purchased the car, is one that for now at least, they seem to be changing. I'm pretty sure I have no contract that would protect me there.

I was actually thinking of RXLawdude when I wrote my post because he is the one pushing the issue and saying that Tesla is not going to honor the ESA if we don't adhere to the specific intervals of 12,500 miles and/or annual. In fact, his posts have left some people here scrambling to schedule their services even though Tesla itself is saying it's not an issue. I understand the desire to have Tesla amend its contracts and documents to reflect its actual policies, but he seems to be instilling unnecessary fear in the community.

I am not a corner case. I live within 50 miles of my service center, and at least in my situation, very little has changed with regard to how I'm treated under Tesla's policies. The only change that affected me was the reduction of the valet radius to 15 miles, but I never really used that service anyway and always brought the car in. I understand that your situation is a bit different.

 

[Andyw2100]

I was actually thinking of RXLawdude when I wrote my post because he is the one pushing the issue and saying that Tesla is not going to honor the ESA if we don't adhere to the specific intervals of 12,500 miles and/or annual. In fact, his posts have left some people here scrambling to schedule their services even though Tesla itself is saying it's not an issue. I understand the desire to have Tesla amend its contracts and documents to reflect its actual policies, but he seems to be instilling unnecessary fear in the community.

I am not a corner case. I live within 50 miles of my service center, and at least in my situation, very little has changed with regard to how I'm treated under Tesla's policies. The only change that affected me was the reduction of the valet radius to 15 miles, but I never really used that service anyway and always brought the car in. I understand that your situation is a bit different.

Thanks for clearing that up.

I agree that rxlawdudue has caused me to be concerned, but I think he (I'm assuming he's a he, based on the "dude" in the screen name) means well. He's just pointing out that if Tesla does choose to enforce the contract as written, those people who may now be opting to not worry about the details of it may find themselves having a problem. I'm guessing any lawyer would give essentially the same advice. That's not an indictment of Tesla, or an indication that he thinks they're suddenly going to take a different attitude than the one they've taken in the past. He's just telling us what we need to do to cover ourselves in the event we do wind up needing that coverage.

That's how I see it anyway.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Thanks for clearing that up.

I agree that rxlawdudue has caused me to be concerned, but I think he (I'm assuming he's a he, based on the "dude" in the screen name) means well. He's just pointing out that if Tesla does choose to enforce the contract as written, those people who may now be opting to not worry about the details of it may find themselves having a problem. I'm guessing any lawyer would give essentially the same advice. That's not an indictment of Tesla, or an indication that he thinks they're suddenly going to take a different attitude than the one they've taken in the past. He's just telling us what we need to do to cover ourselves in the event we do wind up needing that coverage.

That's how I see it anyway.

I largely agree, but the only solution as he proposes is to have the car serviced at the specific intervals of every 12,500 miles, or every year, whichever occurs first, even though that contradicts what many of us have been told by our service centers and others at Tesla. It's a conundrum for sure. I'm simply saying that given my experience with Tesla to date, I have no reason to think they would behave in this manner, and to suggest they will doesn't seem to be supported by actual events. My situation is a little unique in that I have an email from the VP of Worldwide Sales & Service, at the time, stating the elimination of the mileage and time restriction.

In my non-lawyerly opinion, I would try to get the service manager to provide you with a clarification via email.

 

[mibaro2]

I contacted my service advisor to schedule my 2nd annual service appointment. I have the pre-paid plan. My anniversary date is August 23rd. I have 30,000 miles on the car. He told me that it would be no problem to bring the car in annually, regardless of mileage, and that ignoring the mileage stipulation would have no negative impact on my extended warranty. Granted, this is in contradiction to what is stated in the extended warranty written language/contract, but this very clearly appears to be a change in Tesla policy.

I am comfortable following the advice of my service advisor, which mirrors what Jerome has said. I do not believe this will invalidate our extended warranties based on what I was told by service, but I leave that up to each individual to decide for themselves.

I sent an email to my SC asking them if the 8 yr prepaid plan will expire after 8 years (mileage does not count). He said he will look into that and get me the correct information. Which I interpret as the visits do not last indefinitely.
Bringing the car in yearly is a good idea anyway, IMHO.

 

[digitaltim]

I will hit 100k miles in the next 2-3 months before which I will have the car serviced. I prepaid service for 8 years plus I have the extended warranty.

I have taken my car in semi-annually since receiving it in 11/2012 since I am a high mileage driver.

I fully expect this will be my last "free" visit under the agreements - not because they state it but just because of conversations with the SC.

 

[rxlawdude]

I largely agree, but the only solution as he proposes is to have the car serviced at the specific intervals of every 12,500 miles, or every year, whichever occurs first, even though that contradicts what many of us have been told by our service centers and others at Tesla. ...
My situation is a little unique in that I have an email from the VP of Worldwide Sales & Service, at the time, stating the elimination of the mileage and time restriction.

In my non-lawyerly opinion, I would try to get the service manager to provide you with a clarification via email.

And in my lawyerly opinion, I point out the clear language of the ESA (and prepaid service agreement) which states that no person shall have the authority to modify the terms. Q.E.D.

Further, there is conflation between the terms of the PREPAID SERVICE AGREEMENT and the EXTENDED SERVICE AGREEMENT. One is not relevant to the other. I'm simply pointing out that the contracts you signed have very specific terms. The fact that individuals working for Tesla have (and this is inconsistent among TMC posts) seemingly waived some provisions is not at all demonstrative that the next SC manager won't see things differently, and will point you to the only terms that count: the written contract language. Period.

By the way, anyone think it's possible that Jerome, who sent the reassuring emails frequently quoted here, is in "transition" out of Tesla because he unilaterally attempted to waive the contract provisions?