Unless you declined Tesla's mandatory arbitration clause within 30 days of purchase, you have agreed that your only remedy is binding arbitration, not court, if Tesla declines to cover paint issues because of PPF. Check your purchase agreement for further information.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
PPF Voided The Paint Warranty on a Refreshed Model S?
- Thread starter Teamdre84
- Start date
Even if you forgot to decline the binding arbitration agreement with Tesla or anyone else, that doesn't 100% mean you have to go to arbitration. There have been mixed court decisions made regarding binding arbitration agreements and if they violate the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
You would have to go thru arbitration first to show that the administrative process was exhausted. There is nothing in arbitration that could violate the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The arbitrators are just as bound by that as a court. You could try to appeal the decision if there were legal failures in the administrative process. I think starting out in a court would be thrown out because you did not exhaust administrative procedures that were agreed upon by both parties in the contract.
I'm not a lawyer, but people have gone directly to court arguing the arbitration process was in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act. It has been successful sometimes and thrown out other times. They didn't begin at arbitration because the argument is the manufacturer was refusing to honor their warranty and forcing them to go to arbitration, which they felt violated the Magnuson-Moss Act.
I don't see how going to arbitration would violate any of your rights, or how it would violate Magnuson-Moss Act. Arbitrators are bound by all laws. Sure, you can always do stuff against your contractual agreements and obligations, and sometimes the court may listen. How would going through arbitration first before taking it to court deny you any of your legal remedies and rights?
You are severely limited by arbitration and cannot appeal an arbitration decision. The fact that you can't appeal an arbitration decision is big. Which is why a lot of corporations try and force this upon customers. Arbitration decisions are known to lean heavily towards the companies. Even if you were to win, your decision will be a fraction of what it may be worth if it were done in a court.
The people who try and argue arbitration is against the Magnuson-Moss Act are trying to say that the company is using arbitration to get out of upholding their warranty.
Example, your $2,000 refrigerator breaks under warranty and Whirlpool refuses to fix it saying it's your fault. The cost to fix it is $900. You don't agree so you need to go to arbitration per the purchase agreement. By some miracle you win in arbitration, but the max arbitration settlement set forth by Whirlpool is $300. In this case, the company likes arbitration because it saves them money. Customers on the other hand feel it violates their Magnuson-Moss Act protections because the company did not comply with the terms of the warranty. Arbitration allows them to wipe their hands clean for less than the cost of the repairs or replacement.
Kairide, there is no maximum amount Tesla has set that can be awarded in an Arbitration Claim that purchasers have agreed to. This hypothetical is very hypothetical and not very accurate. Tesla is still responsible for upholding the warranty. The arbitrator is just like a judge. There is no difference. You pick the arbitrator in your location. Tesla pays the costs for any arbitration. Why is this so bad? Tesla's arbitration allows you to take a claim to small claims court, just not a big-bucks court first.
You either work for a company that pushes arbitration clauses or just hate to admit that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Forced Arbitration: A Clause for Concern
Forced arbitration is bad for consumers
Many financial institutions use forced arbitration clauses in their contracts to block consumers with disputes from banding together in court, instead requiring consumers to argue their cases separately in private arbitration proceedings. Embattled banking giant, Wells Fargo, made headlines by...
www.epi.org
Let me know if you still believe arbitration is good as a consumer. The arbitrator is not like a judge, arbitration is a system heavily weighted towards the company paying for the arbitrator. Do you really think all of these companies force arbitration because they want to protect their customers?
I opted out of arbitration, and I do for all of my other accounts. Each new account, I search for opting out first thing. I recommend everyone opt out. It is not good for the consumer, historically. I am just pointing out that it is a process, just like the court system, and if you didn't opt out, you must go through that administrative process. Tesla has no maximum they will pay. You can have lawyers with you. All legal challenges should be just as valid in arbitration. The arbitrator is like a judge, and should decide the case based on the evidence in an impartial manner. Sometimes Judges in the court system aren't that impartial either. That is the system we have. If you don't like arbitration, like me, you should opt out of it during the time permitted. Otherwise -- seems to me -- you have agreed to arbitration. Case closed fairly and impartially by me! 
Similar threads
