San Diego Man's $58,000 Nightmare with a (Salvage Title) Tesla Model S

[stopcrazypp]

Imagine how upset you would be if the inspector deemed your house unworthy of electricity and confiscated and destroyed it.

I keep seeing such hyperbole in this thread, but absolutely no evidence of it in the posted salvage repair agreement. Nowhere in that agreement does it say Tesla can confiscate or destroy the vehicle. At worst that will happen is Tesla deems the car not roadworthy and gives it back in the same condition and the guy is out the salvage vehicle inspection fee.

So basically all this really amounts to is the guy not willing to pay for that fee.

As for all the power company analogies being thrown out, I happened to just help someone open a new temporary service panel for construction, and guess what, just to apply:
- you must agree to the power company doing a full inspection of the project (including looking at blueprints and site inspections)
- you must agree to pay for any damage caused to their equipment
- you must agree to pay all inspection and related fees (which is not specified beforehand) no matter if the new service is not approved or the project canceled
- you must agree that they also have the right to take a deposit beforehand

 

[ckessel]

As for all the power company analogies being thrown out, I happened to just help someone open a new temporary service panel for construction, and guess what, just to apply:

Fair enough, though getting power service is separate from whether I have the right to use my lamp.

Tesla, near as I can tell from limited Google searching, seems to be completely unique in demanding an "inspection" fee before you can use one of their parts acquired 2nd-hand.

edit: That's not to say there aren't things that require inspections. There's lots of them, like a home wiring check, but they're not due to the manufacturer.

 

[ElSupreme]

Can anyone think of any other manufactured good (car, tv, whatever) where, if bought used or even damaged, it requires the manufacturer's consent to use?

Is Tesla completely unique in this?

I buy a used TV, I plug it in, I can use it.
I buy a used 12V battery, I attach it, I can use it.
etc

I buy a broken Intel i7 processor. I attach it, I can't use it because it is broken. I call Intel they tell me to "Get lost!"

See that is what happened here as well. Except Tesla didn't say 'get lost' they said hey we might look at it if you agree to some terms.

The battery was/is broken for all intents an purposes! It was/is non functional bought in a 3rd party "as-is" auction. He gambled and lost.

- - - Updated - - -

Tesla, near as I can tell from limited Google searching, seems to be completely unique in demanding an "inspection" fee before you can use one of their parts acquired 2nd-hand.

He can use it however he wants! He can use it as a step into his garage. He can mount it on the wall as a conversation piece. He can rip it apart and build a battery backup for his entire house like WK057, he can even use it do drive a vehicle if he can fix it.

 

[skboston]

You can't be using Intel CPU as an example, it's a bad one.

 

[loganss]

How does Nissan handle this issue with the Leaf?

Tesla is coming off as the overly protective parent in this situation.

 

[ElSupreme]

You can't be using Intel CPU as an example, it's a bad one.

Ok I buy a broken used [X] from company [Y] in 3rd party "as-is" sale with known damage to other parts nearby. I try to use it but it doesn't do what I want. I call company [Y] they tell me to pound sand!

Same thing. Insert any product [X] made by company [Y]. Makes no difference

 

[bonnie]

Real life example: My propane ran out several months ago (long story, but somehow wasn't on my provider's list to check when they switched systems). They came out and filled the tank but were unwilling to turn it on (left it locked, dammit) until I was home, because they needed to check that all my systems were OFF first ... hot water heater, cook top, etc.

I swore to them I had checked everything and was willing to take the liability. They didn't care. And it was MY house. But they were unwilling to let the propane flow without checking first. I was annoyed, but there was no way around it.

 

[skboston]

Just because you bought it with known damage, doesn't mean the only company to have the last word on it is Tesla. This could set a bad precedent and hurt future sales, let alone the power that Tesla will have over future owners.
I could buy a broken phone, fix it and use it. I don't need the manufacturer's approval to do so.

I get it, it's a car, but Tesla shouldn't be the only one to hold the on/off button, imagine the kind of power over millions of vehicles in 4-6 years. There must be an independent 3rd party that could certify if the car/battery could be used.

 

[ckessel]

Ok I buy a broken used [X] from company [Y] in 3rd party "as-is" sale with known damage to other parts nearby. I try to use it but it doesn't do what I want. I call company [Y] they tell me to pound sand!

Same thing. Insert any product [X] made by company [Y]. Makes no difference

You're being completely and intentionally dense comparing a non-functional item with a deactivated one.

 

[skboston]

I'm fine if Tesla asks for a reasonable fee to check the vehicle and the battery, perhaps something similar to Annual inspection fee and if it finds that the car is good, activate it, if not point the areas that need work.

You bought the car, it's yours you should be able to do with it whatever you want, just as an ICE car. If it passes state certification, you're good to go.

 

[ElSupreme]

You're being completely and intentionally dense comparing a non-functional item with a deactivated one.

A deactivated item is by definition non-functional. They are exactly equivalent!

Fixing via software, fixing via hardware makes no difference. It is still fixing the part. If he doesn't want Tesla to look at it and do it then he needs to find someone else who will. If someone figures out how to toggle the battery back to charging Tesla won't be able to do anything about it.

 

[eepic]

A car is a total loss due to cost of replacement and value of the car, not functionality. My daughter owns a car that's a "total loss" when it needs tires. It'd really suck if the manufacturer permanently disabled the car when she got a flat.

So, you're advocating Tesla should get special rules, for now, because something might happen?

There was a pretty big uproar when Blankenship said you had to have service done every year by Tesla or it'd invalidate the warranty . I assume you think that'd be a great idea though (even if it's illegal), because Tesla can't afford the risk of an improperly maintained car?

I was referring to your statement that this is no different than any other car that's been in an accident. It's in fact very different, when the car was deemed by insurance to be total loss (financially) the legal status changes. The original owner gets a replacement and Tesla no longer owes any obligation to the "salvage" car, which could be just scrap metal. If you buy the scrap metal privately from the insurance company, I think there should be no expectation that Tesla needs to do anything for you. They have not gone out of their way to disable anything on this car as it is currently. If the want to set terms before they look at it for you, then that's what it is.

I'm judging this situation by its own facts, I don't see how a separate issue regarding warranty has anything to do with this.

 

[stopcrazypp]

You're being completely and intentionally dense comparing a non-functional item with a deactivated one.

I don't agree with this characterization. The car is non-functional. And it was made that way by the car accident (not Tesla). And it doesn't matter whether it is a software fuse or a hardware fuse (we don't know yet), obviously the car was damaged enough to trigger it.

And given Tesla has to do something to the car to make it work again, it's a "fix". If this was not the case, the guy doesn't even have to contact Tesla. And when Tesla has to do something to the car, they are liable for it unless the guy signs a paper releasing them from such liability.

This is a not simply a used car. It's not even simply a salvage car (of which some are drive-able, just with too much damage to be worth fixing). More specifically, it's an undriveable salvage car and has to be made drive-able again.

 

[efusco]

This is such a self-made issue for the owner. He had no assurances from Tesla prior to buying the salvage (his responsibility).
He put money into fixing the car without assuring it would work and be road worth (his responsibility)
He wants Tesla now to check it and turn it on and Tesla, quite reasonably IMO, asks for him to sign a waiver so that they aren't responsible if this seriously damaged vehicle has issues, catches fire, dies prematurely, whatever. How can he not think that that is a reasonable request from Tesla? he took the risk, he knew the vehicle was salvage, Tesla should not have to accept any of that risk and getting a waiver is totally routine and, frankly, it would be stupid of Tesla to not ask for it as it could cause them crazy amounts of negative press and puts them at financial risk if the owner is injured by a burning car or whatever and they didn't have the waiver.

 

[TexasEV]

Just because you bought it with known damage, doesn't mean the only company to have the last word on it is Tesla. This could set a bad precedent and hurt future sales, let alone the power that Tesla will have over future owners.

I think the number of prospective Tesla buyers who wouldn't buy a new Tesla because of what they may or may not be able to do with it if the car is in an accident and is declared a TOTAL LOSS by their insurance and are compensated for that has to be extremely small, if not zero. Certainly smaller than the number who would hear about a problem with a salvaged Tesla and as the story gets retold the "salvaged" part gets obscured or dropped completely in the retelling.

 

[ckessel]

And given Tesla has to do something to the car to make it work again, it's a "fix".

Tesla only has to "fix" it because Tesla "broke" it in the first place by deactivating it.

Again, name any other manufactured product, anything, where you have to beg (and pay) the manufacturer to re-enable it if you bought it used or damaged.

- - - Updated - - -

If someone figures out how to toggle the battery back to charging Tesla won't be able to do anything about it.

What stops Tesla from just disabling it again?

 

[ElSupreme]

Tesla only has to "fix" it because Tesla "broke" it in the first place by deactivating it.

Again, name any other manufactured product, anything, where you have to beg (and pay) the manufacturer to re-enable it if you bought it used or damaged.

- - - Updated - - -


What stops Tesla from just disabling it again?

The lack of a violent high speed impact that triggers the airbags and pack.

 

[ckessel]

The lack of a violent high speed impact that triggers the airbags and pack.

And you're sure that's why it was disabled, that it's the only reason for disablement?

Say some third party figures out how to re-enable it. How has the situation changed from Tesla's perspective? The car is still a safety concern in their eyes and they'd still feel like they have all the same liability they apparently feel now. Why wouldn't Tesla remotely disable it if they can and if they can't then sue him to protect their interests?

 

[efusco]

Tesla only has to "fix" it because Tesla "broke" it in the first place by deactivating it.

Again, name any other manufactured product, anything, where you have to beg (and pay) the manufacturer to re-enable it if you bought it used or damaged.

- - - Updated - - -


What stops Tesla from just disabling it again?

Lots of assumptions--how do you know Tesla disabled it? I'm not sure that's the case at all unless it was via some automated system when a battery becomes critically low or the car severely damaged.
You name a manufacture under any sort of obligation to reenable any salvage vehicle...in particular one that was felt to be so unroadworthy that it had to be disabled. To me this seems a wise move to reduce liability and the only other way to avoid liability is to have the owner sign a waiver to relieve the company of said liability.

 

[ckessel]

You name a manufacture under any sort of obligation to reenable any salvage vehicle...

That's like asking me to name a manufacturer that enables reverse-neutron hyperdrives. There aren't any.

To me this seems a wise move to reduce liability..

Does the manufacturer have any liability once a car is salvage? I can't find anything that says so one way or the other. If the manufacturer has liability on a salvage, then I'd think Tesla would require every salvage to have the battery disabled before it's sold. Hell, I'd think Tesla and every other manufacturer would want the cars crushed and disposed of.