It's funny (not in a "ha ha" way), I was just reading comments below a Tesla article (not on ABG) and thought several were obviously influenced by the Top Gear episode. Without thinking about it too much, it seems a good idea to sue and I also like that they aren't seeking monetary damages.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Reading the actual article at http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/tesla_-_claim_form_claimants_copy_29_03_11.pdf they do appear to include a claim for damages.
However, I've spoken to legal council for general advice and whilst this is in no way representative of a judgment or opinion on the merits/intent of this case, it was their view that anyone who caps damages is not looking for damages. Why would you? It may be a requirement in the UK to be able to submit such a claim.
This supports IMO, DP's previous post; they're looking to right wrongs not fund the next Tesla party!
If you have time, do take a moment to read the claim; it lays out a great deal of information that I don't think that we knew (I certainly didn't) including that it appears that TG had already written a script that included pushing the Roadster and pre-determining it to be unsuitable.
{I reserve the right to edit this post should I need to clarify the legal bit but, you get the meaning}
However, I've spoken to legal council for general advice and whilst this is in no way representative of a judgment or opinion on the merits/intent of this case, it was their view that anyone who caps damages is not looking for damages. Why would you? It may be a requirement in the UK to be able to submit such a claim.
This supports IMO, DP's previous post; they're looking to right wrongs not fund the next Tesla party!
If you have time, do take a moment to read the claim; it lays out a great deal of information that I don't think that we knew (I certainly didn't) including that it appears that TG had already written a script that included pushing the Roadster and pre-determining it to be unsuitable.
{I reserve the right to edit this post should I need to clarify the legal bit but, you get the meaning}
They don't go into any specifics in that document about the 55 mile thing, but I expect some of this might hinge on whether it would do on their track. Given that the range at constant 125mph is ~75 miles then it may well be the case. We always knew those were weasel words, but TG were careful in choosing them. The trouble is at that point it becomes a bit more subjective.
Tesla blog post on the subject: Ten Million Electric Miles and Counting: By Jove, It Does Work in the Real World | Blog | Tesla Motors
Now that it's apparent that the show is scripted ahead of the actual road test, does it make sense for them to continue? Morally rather than financially of course.
His lawyers must be making a chunk of change these days...
I didn't know he had a house on the IoM. I wonder what he makes of all those electric bikes flying round there these days?
I didn't know he had a house on the IoM. I wonder what he makes of all those electric bikes flying round there these days?
Yes it was calculated here that all the other Supercars that did the "one gallon" economy test would all get around the same miles around their track.
Also not mentioned is how bogus Clackson's claim of Health and Safety reasons for pushing the car inside. Specifically that electric cars do not exhaust deadly fumes so driving them indoors (like industrial golf carts) is not a health concern.
Last edited:
Jaff
Active Member
Hey, maybe a court ordered full admission of TG's dirty deeds and apology from the BBC and all involved with presenting / producing / writing the TG program will cause it to either change and become a legitimate auto reviewing show, or embarrass it off the air...might just end up being "Stop Gear" as we know it Michael. :wink:
The BBC is also to blame here...at the end of the day, they are responsible for the content of the program they air. :frown:
Either way, the BBC should retract their award to TG as their "most factual" TV program! :biggrin::biggrin:
The BBC is also to blame here...at the end of the day, they are responsible for the content of the program they air. :frown:
Either way, the BBC should retract their award to TG as their "most factual" TV program! :biggrin::biggrin:
Jaff
Active Member
Bang on Michael!
Tesla would have a stated a specific amount of Special Damages they were looking for if this action was about monetary recovery.
This is action is about damage to product reputation...recompense is generally an admission of guilt & apology from the offending party + court costs +$1.00.
I think the only monetary damages in this case will be the cost of the court action.
Tesla would have a stated a specific amount of Special Damages they were looking for if this action was about monetary recovery.
This is action is about damage to product reputation...recompense is generally an admission of guilt & apology from the offending party + court costs +$1.00.
I think the only monetary damages in this case will be the cost of the court action.
I may have mentioned before that I was in the audience for the pilot of this TG format. They said then that health and safety rules prevented them starting some supercar that was wheeled in (I forget, it might have been a Zonda). They still started it.
Talkredius
Member
best answer was given by Robert Llewellyn in his Fully Charged pilot episode
I think many of you have already watched this.
I think many of you have already watched this.
Last edited by a moderator:
Arnold Panz
Model Sig 304, VIN 542
Geez, I never imagined when I joined this website my legal background would come in handy on so many occasions! 
OK, I think that Tesla has a very good chance of winning this case, which means that the Beeb will likely settle in rather short order once their lawyers/solicitors get a look at the facts. The bottom line is, libel is MUCH easier to prove in the UK than in the US, and Tesla has likely learned its lesson from the Fisker case, as well as (ironically) the "who is a Founder?" case with Martin. The Top Gear guys have a lot of leeway -- the courts (even in the UK) would likely say "who believes what they see on TV anyway?", but to go after the Beeb is really smart. The Beeb is rebroadcasting (and selling via ads and DVDs etc.) something that they now know is untrue, and potentially damaging to Tesla's (and all EV's) reputation and could cause damage. This would probably be a pretty good case in the US, but in UK courts where libel laws are much easier to enforce this case seems pretty compelling for Tesla, based on what we now know about Tesla's efforts to stop rebroadcasting and/or correct the record.
OK, I think that Tesla has a very good chance of winning this case, which means that the Beeb will likely settle in rather short order once their lawyers/solicitors get a look at the facts. The bottom line is, libel is MUCH easier to prove in the UK than in the US, and Tesla has likely learned its lesson from the Fisker case, as well as (ironically) the "who is a Founder?" case with Martin. The Top Gear guys have a lot of leeway -- the courts (even in the UK) would likely say "who believes what they see on TV anyway?", but to go after the Beeb is really smart. The Beeb is rebroadcasting (and selling via ads and DVDs etc.) something that they now know is untrue, and potentially damaging to Tesla's (and all EV's) reputation and could cause damage. This would probably be a pretty good case in the US, but in UK courts where libel laws are much easier to enforce this case seems pretty compelling for Tesla, based on what we now know about Tesla's efforts to stop rebroadcasting and/or correct the record.
Arnold, your input is priceless, and by that I mean that we have no money to pay for it but thanks for weighing in once again, it's certainly valued! :smile:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Norbert
TSLA will win
Even if you subtract a lot for them being just satirical, and then compare it to what has happened as described in Tesla's account, it's still blatantly wrong. They weren't just joking. One of the really bad things is that apparently the outcome (total failure: doesn't work in the real world) was pre-scripted, and written before any test, but presented as if it were a test result.
Similar threads
- Article
