Solar Roof, big price increase

[holeydonut]

... the homeowner would have the right to expectation damages to place them in the position they would have been had the contract been completed ...

I don't think this is enforceable unless the homeowner can demonstrate they did certain things in expectation of their solar roof. Or they've already paid for the solar roof under their old contract terms, but now Tesla is demanding they fork over more money or they won't get PTO. I don't think anyone has encountered the situation in the latter example... it seems the price-hike is a thing with people still at the permitting/discovery phase of their project.

For example, let's pretend that the homeowner previously had 100% red Spanish tiles that still had 25 years of useful life. But because they were expecting a Tesla V3 solar roof on the South side of the house, they re-tiled the entire East/West/North in Black to match the specific Tesla Solar tile color. In this case, I think there may be a case with damages to claim. The homeowner would state they acted on to their detriment only because of the exact contract they had with Tesla provided a pricing incentive to replace their roof early. And now, with the deceptive pricing, the homeowner cannot afford to complete their roofing project.

But really, I don't see this scenario playing out well ... the damages seem limited to wasted time in Tesla's sales queue. Which is why I don't believe any lawyer would even homeowners by taking a cut/fee of the recovered damages. A homeowner is always welcome to just pay out of pocket for a lawyer to file some paperwork at the homeowner's specific direction out of spite.

PS, my favorite corporate litigation case was this one guy convinced his brother to file and pursue an intellectual property suit against the corporation that I was working for. The damages were minimal at best; it felt more spite-filled than anything else haha. They filed out of East Texas, which is notorious as a hub for IP cases, and the courts there often lend traction to cases that would just be dismissed elsewhere.

Anyway, the company offered to settle, but that offer was rejected. So they eventually just went to bat to win. This thing actually went trial. It tied up like 5 in house lawyers and paralegals and outside counsel for like 3 years. They plaintiff obtained countless documents during discovery, deposed a bunch of corporate employees, and just wasted a bunch of time. The plaintiff actually won the case. Damages were determined to be $1.00. The company cut the guy a check for $1.00. At least it kept lawyers employed.

 

[SMAlset]

I still can’t help but wonder if all these on-going installs were suppose to get this email. Kind of like the double billed car purchase auto payments that had to be reversed out. No way was that expected. Embarrassing error on their part.

 

[gpez]

I agree that it seems unlikely (especially barring a class action) to see this as a big case for a lawyer. That said, assuming it is established that Tesla breached the contract, it seems like the homeowner would have the right to expectation damages to place them in the position they would have been had the contract been completed - not just to recover any expenses they might have made in reliance on the contract. Since Tesla helpfully provides estimates of the value of the product, this would actually be relatively practical to calculate, unlike in some contract disputes.

I would also note that, at least theoretically, an arbitrator or judge could compel Tesla to complete the contract as signed. But, it does seem extremely unlikely for that to happen, even though the solar roof is a fairly unique product at the moment.

Assuming that it is established that Tesla breached the contract and the homeowner is entitled to remedy, what other remedy besides forcing Tesla to complete the contract as signed would be viable?

I still can’t help but wonder if not all this on-going installs weren’t suppose to get this email. Kind of like the double billed car purchase auto payments that had to be reversed out.

Hanlon's razor

 

[cobra]

I've seen a pair of posts of people saying they had already taken loans and signed the Tesla agreement. One post had the person paying on the loan while waiting for install to complete. I believe another was notified after install of the price change...

So in cases like those, I think damages might be easier to pursue.

Assuming that it is established that Tesla breached the contract and the homeowner is entitled to remedy, what other remedy besides forcing Tesla to complete the contract as signed would be viable?

Given the guarantee to replace the solar roof with a comparable standard roof, I could see Tesla being compelled to pay for install of a comparable solar system given true breach of contract.

 

[holeydonut]

I still can’t help but wonder if not all these on-going installs were suppose to get this email. Kind of like the double billed car purchase auto payments that had to be reversed out.

Lol that could be Tesla's "out of the out"... claim their system was hacked and restore all the old contracts if the backlash is severe enough. This supports the belief that deceptive pricing and bait and switch practices are self-regulating.

 

[wjgjr]

I don't think this is enforceable unless the homeowner can demonstrate they did certain things in expectation of their solar roof. Or they've already paid for the solar roof under their old contract terms, but now Tesla is demanding they fork over more money or they won't get PTO. I don't think anyone has encountered the situation in the latter example... it seems the price-hike is a thing with people still at the permitting/discovery phase of their project.

The idea behind expectation damages in general is that, once the contract is signed, each party has the expectation that they will be in a certain position at the completion of the contract. If one party breaches the agreement, expectation damages are intended to place the other party in that position. This is different from reliance damages, which are expenses a party incurs relying on the other party to complete their part of the bargain.

And expectation damages are a reasonable remedy because it protects the injured party in exactly cases like this, where (it appears) the other party simply decided they don't want to do the contract any more. If anybody could simply walk away from any agreement and just pay out any actual costs/reliance damages incurred by the other party, that would be problematic. Of course, it is sometimes hard to measure expectation damages, which is why contracts often include liquidation damages to bypass that calculation. But, they might be easier to measure in this case....

Assuming that it is established that Tesla breached the contract and the homeowner is entitled to remedy, what other remedy besides forcing Tesla to complete the contract as signed would be viable?

It seems to me that a remedy would be for Tesla to pay the customer the present value of the estimated 25-year net profit of the system. This would place the customer in the position they expected to be in at the conclusion of the contract. (I would guess Tesla might argue it puts you in a better position given your roof is still available to get solar, so I have no idea how that might all work out.) It may not be what the customer wants (specific performance,) but it would likely be considered an appropriate legal remedy and preferable to trying to force Tesla to do work they don't want to do.

 

[holeydonut]

And expectation damages are a reasonable remedy because it protects the injured party in exactly cases like this, where (it appears) the other party simply decided they don't want to do the contract any more. If anybody could simply walk away from any agreement and just pay out any actual costs/reliance damages incurred by the other party, that would be problematic. Of course, it is sometimes hard to measure expectation damages, which is why contracts often include liquidation damages to bypass that calculation. But, they might be easier to measure in this case....

Expectation damages is usually easier to quantify where there is some sort of comparable bid. Like if Jane has a contract to agree to pay Luke $50,000 for construction services in May. So Luke stops looking for new work in May, buys tools specific to Jane's job, etc. Then in late April Jane just pulls out of the contract because she found someone else... Luke can show expectation damages and also detremental reliance.

But for expectation damages, Luke would likely have to produce evidence he had opportunities for other contracts and selected Jane's offer. Something tangible to show how his expectations were damaged because of Jane and the damage can be quantified with a similar bid of his services. And he would need to produce receipts and evidence he made his own investments in anticipation of Jane's contract to get the detrimental reliance damages. But I don't think he could claim both types of damages at the same time (it's usually one or the other).

With this "pricing change", it seems like Tesla is just shoving through a last-minute adjustment, and kind of switching expectations of the deal mid-flight. Tesla hasn't actually cancelled the contract. They're telling the homeowner the contract always allowed for this foreseen activity; so now the homeowner has to agree to the new price or the transaction will be voided and $100 refunded.

So maybe a homeowner has a quote/bid from Luma on their shingle solar roof, and they picked Tesla Solar V3. And now with V3 terms have unexpectedly changed, the Luma quote is also no longer available. Maybe then I could see expectation damages being enforced because there was clear value lost when the homeowner picked Tesla. But, I cannot imagine a scenario where an arbitrator or ruling compels Tesla to sell that rooftop solar system for the originally contracted price. Tesla's original price in itself doesn't seem to inform expected damages unless you your point, Tesla put in liquidation damages in their own contract.

The big mess up is for the homeowner who already had an install in progress. That one seems way more messy to change terms after work has begun and the home has been altered.

I still hope this is just a "technological error" and Tesla will go back to honoring their previous commitments.

 

[SMAlset]

Lol that could be Tesla's "out of the out"... claim their system was hacked and restore all the old contracts if the backlash is severe enough. This supports the belief that deceptive pricing and bait and switch practices are self-regulating.

@holeydonut, so cynical all the time be it Tesla, PG&E etc. Well all I can say is Tesla didn’t have to give us a price break in the form of a check for several thousand after we got PTO which they did (and they continued to give us the discounted bundled lower pricing on our PWs when we ordered a third and prices had gone up on those); this happened after they had lowered solar panel pricing last Summer and we had signed a contract from January/February at a higher price. They also installed more energy efficient panels and the new Gateway2 when older products had been spec’d on our order without raising our cost. We don’t approach things like we are always being fleeced by someone and I’d still give them the benefit of the doubt on these ongoing solar roof contracts. Think it bears seeing how things turn out and whether it was a programming error for older orders.

 

[wjgjr]

Expectation damages is usually easier to quantify where there is some sort of comparable bid. Like if Jane has a contract to agree to pay Luke $50,000 for construction services in May. So Luke stops looking for new work in May, buys tools specific to Jane's job, etc. Then in late April Jane just pulls out of the contract because she found someone else... Luke can show expectation damages and also detremental reliance.

But for expectation damages, Luke would likely have to produce evidence he had opportunities for other contracts and selected Jane's offer. Something tangible to show how his expectations were damaged because of Jane and the damage can be quantified with a similar bid of his services. And he would need to produce receipts and evidence he made his own investments in anticipation of Jane's contract to get the detrimental reliance damages. But I don't think he could claim both types of damages at the same time (it's usually one or the other).

With this "pricing change", it seems like Tesla is just shoving through a last-minute adjustment, and kind of switching expectations of the deal mid-flight. Tesla hasn't actually cancelled the contract. They're telling the homeowner the contract always allowed for this foreseen activity; so now the homeowner has to agree to the new price or the transaction will be voided and $100 refunded.

So maybe a homeowner has a quote/bid from Luma on their shingle solar roof, and they picked Tesla Solar V3. And now with V3 terms have unexpectedly changed, the Luma quote is also no longer available. Maybe then I could see expectation damages being enforced because there was clear value lost when the homeowner picked Tesla. But, I cannot imagine a scenario where an arbitrator or ruling compels Tesla to sell that rooftop solar system for the originally contracted price. Tesla's original price in itself doesn't seem to inform expected damages unless you your point, Tesla put in liquidation damages in their own contract.

The big mess up is for the homeowner who already had an install in progress. That one seems way more messy to change terms after work has begun and the home has been altered.

I still hope this is just a "technological error" and Tesla will go back to honoring their previous commitments.

Expectation Damages are:

Damages awarded when a party breaches a contract that are intended to put the injured party in as good of a position as if the breaching party fully performed its contractual duties.

while Reliance Damages are:

Damages awarded for losses suffered in reasonable reliance on a promise. Reliance damages are calculated by asking what it would take to restore the injured party to the economic position occupied before the party acted in reasonable reliance on the promise.

A lot of what you are talking about are reliance damages, not expectation damages (in the terms used referring to contracts.)

The heart of this discussion is whether this "pricing change" is a breach of the contact. If not, then the customer has no damages because Tesla did not breach the contract. So, all of this discussion (as noted earlier) is predicated on an assumption that Tesla is in breach. (And to be clear, this is different from answering the question of whether Tesla is in the right or wrong from an ethical standpoint.)

If Tesla did breach, the expectation is based on where the customer would be had the contract been completed - the solar roof (+ PWs, if applicable) installed and operating. And this makes sense. As a simple example, if I contract to sell you an ounce of gold in a month for $2k, I can't simply decide I no longer want to if the price goes up to $3k, just because it is now a losing proposition to me. What I potentially can do is give you $3k instead, if I am unable to acquire the gold, as that places you in the same position (and, you can immediately go out and acquire the gold.)

The one difference, as I noted, is that in the above example, gold is largely an infinite resource, where in this case we are talking about a limited resource of your roof. Tesla could potentially argue to a reduced payout (vs. the net present value of the uninstalled system) because you are still able to use the roof for solar from another company.

The lack of liquidation damages is actually a point in favor of expectation damages. Liquidation damages are included when a contract wants to avoid the need to determine damages in the event of a breach and would generally be applied in place of other types of damages.

 

[jkeyser14]

WTF Tesla, this type of treatment of your customers is disgusting.

 

[holeydonut]

If Tesla did breach, the expectation is based on where the customer would be had the contract been completed - the solar roof (+ PWs, if applicable) installed and operating. And this makes sense. As a simple example, if I contract to sell you an ounce of gold in a month for $2k, I can't simply decide I no longer want to if the price goes up to $3k, just because it is now a losing proposition to me. What I potentially can do is give you $3k instead, if I am unable to acquire the gold, as that places you in the same position (and, you can immediately go out and acquire the gold.)

Yes, for the sake of argument let's align that we both believe Tesla has breached their contract.

Your example uses an easily quantifiable fungible goods type of contract that is fully executed. The damage can be calculated with reasonable certainty because gold has a value that is commonly accepted and is historically tracked. So, failure to deliver Gold at $2k has a clear harm and damage to me. And, it is likely for your example contract to be enforced with expectation damages, then I would have had to actually pay you a reasonable sum of money to obtain your gold futures contract. Simply giving you a $100 deposit for the possibility of entering into a futures contract is not... a futures contract.

If I have a documented transaction of a fair value purchase of this futures contract, then yes, the expectation damages are easily quantifiable and enforceable.

Of course, in the financial world the contracts are much more ironclad than a Tesla solar contract, so this type of scenario cannot really happen today since lawyers of days gone by have added thousands or provisions and blah blah.

Also, the value of the Tesla Solar Roof V3 is not so clear cut as gold. An arbitrator cannot compel Tesla to to perform the installation at the previous price. An arbitrator could require Tesla pay restitution for damages incurred because the Homeowner can no longer get a solar shingle roof at the price initially offered, and the homeowner gave up the opportunity to have purchased a similar product from another vendor.

I still haven't seen an argument that the Tesla roof contract itself qualifies for expectation damages if the homeowner has not paid the cash value to purchase the roof (not just the deposit), and if the work has not yet started on the home.

 

[holeydonut]

@holeydonut, so cynical all the time be it Tesla, PG&E etc. Well all I can say is Tesla didn’t have to give us a price break in the form of a check for several thousand after we got PTO which they did (and they continued to give us the discounted bundled lower pricing on our PWs when we ordered a third and prices had gone up on those); this happened after they had lowered solar panel pricing last Summer and we had signed a contract from January/February at a higher price. They also installed more energy efficient panels and the new Gateway2 when older products had been spec’d on our order without raising our cost. We don’t approach things like we are always being fleeced by someone and I’d still give them the benefit of the doubt on these ongoing solar roof contracts. Think it bears seeing how things turn out and whether it was a programming error for older orders.

Yeah, I've spent too much time in corporate. My cynicism goes to 11.

Major pricing changes that result in broadcast messages to a ton of in-funnel leads/prospects doesn't happen because of a glitch. It's because some product lead brainstormed the idea; an ops person documented the to-do list; other SMEs assessed risks and opportunities in the plan; some finance person crunched the data in a spreadsheet; and the group decided.... yeah let's do it. And you know they were aware what this would mean to people in the sales funnel who had not yet paid.

I mean look at the emails people are getting. They bothered to retrieve the old contract amount, the new required amount, and sent it to people for acceptance. That's not a glitch (although it won't stop someone from blaming a glitch).

 

[wjgjr]

Yes, for the sake of argument let's align that we both believe Tesla has breached their contract.

Your example uses an easily quantifiable fungible goods type of contract that is fully executed. The damage can be calculated with reasonable certainty because gold has a value that is commonly accepted and is historically tracked. So, failure to deliver Gold at $2k has a clear harm and damage to me. And, it is likely for your example contract to be enforced with expectation damages, then I would have had to actually pay you a reasonable sum of money to obtain your gold futures contract. Simply giving you a $100 deposit for the possibility of entering into a futures contract is not... a futures contract.

If you failed to deliver me gold at a $1,000 discount simply because of a weak contract with a nominal cash consideration exchanged, I don't think I could collect expectation damages from you.

Also, the value of the Tesla Solar Roof V3 is not so clear cut as gold. An arbitrator cannot compel Tesla to to perform the installation at the previous price. An arbitrator could require Tesla pay restitution for damages incurred because the Homeowner can no longer get a solar shingle roof at the price initially offered, and the homeowner gave up the opportunity to have purchased a similar product from another vendor.

I still haven't seen an argument that the Tesla roof contract itself qualifies for expectation damages if the homeowner has not paid the cash value to purchase the roof (not just the deposit), and if the work has not yet started on the home.

Expectation damages do not depend on whether the customer has paid more than the deposit. If both sides have signed a valid contract, the same damages apply regardless of how much was paid (though the amount of any actual award obviously accounts for amounts paid.) A contract requires consideration, but there is nothing magical about actually making a payment, unless the contract explicitly bases something on that payment. In the case of the Tesla contract, payment is generally due later in the process, but that doesn't make the contract any less enforceable or the penalties for breach any different. (Of course, if the customer actually misses a payment required by the contract, this would change things.) Similarly, in the gold example, if we contractually agree to exchange some gold for cash in one month, it does not matter that no payment has yet been made. As long as the contract is clear on the terms, a party can't simply back out because they don't like the deal (unless the contract provides for such an option.)

While the value of the roof is not as clear cut as gold, it is actually pretty easy to ascertain the expected value of the system. Tesla tells you how much you should expect to generate over 25 years with the roof, and there is no reason not to think that is at least a reasonable estimate.

 

[bayareaever]

My ~$56k pending roof/pw install is supposed to be reduced ~$2k because I just paid off a solar lease 3 years early (they offered me the discount, I didn’t ask, and I do have it in writing).

I haven’t actually received the discount yet because it’s stuck in the ‘contract department’. I also haven’t received any price increase email, but if I do, I will be canceling because if that’s not bait and switch, I don’t know what is.

Suing Tesla doesn’t sound like an option, because I haven’t been ‘damaged’ but that is some shady business practice going on. I am long time supporter with lots of stock and a model 3.

I can only hope that they honor the price which I agreed to months ago and that they do the same for most other customers. My roof is definitely not simple, with ~8 different planes, etc. My reservation is from August ‘20 and this has been a long slow process to say the least.

 

[holeydonut]

Expectation damages do not depend on whether the customer has paid more than the deposit. If both sides have signed a valid contract, the same damages apply regardless of how much was paid (though the amount of any actual award obviously accounts for amounts paid.) A contract requires consideration, but there is nothing magical about actually making a payment, unless the contract explicitly bases something on that payment. In the case of the Tesla contract, payment is generally due later in the process, but that doesn't make the contract any less enforceable or the penalties for breach any different. (Of course, if the customer actually misses a payment required by the contract, this would change things.) Similarly, in the gold example, if we contractually agree to exchange some gold for cash in one month, it does not matter that no payment has yet been made. As long as the contract is clear on the terms, a party can't simply back out because they don't like the deal (unless the contract provides for such an option.)

While the value of the roof is not as clear cut as gold, it is actually pretty easy to ascertain the expected value of the system. Tesla tells you how much you should expect to generate over 25 years with the roof, and there is no reason not to think that is at least a reasonable estimate.

Yeah, I think that's where you and I differ... but I do hope the people who need a lawyer to help push Tesla to honor damages can find someone who sees it from your perspective. Ideally someone out there will help seek recovery for the expected damages as you outlined.

Separately, I still think the FTC should be made aware of this business practice even if the agency cannot help the individual(s).

I'm in the cynical-camp... these Tesla contracts were described as "short" and written where only Tesla had input to the terms. They put maximum flexibility in there for themselves and minimized their exposure to breach. Similarly, I believe that if I had a short gold futures contract that you wrote up and nominal cash consideration paid to you... then if something went awry with the example agreement, I'd have a hard time finding an arbitrator to determine in my favor that you owed me the full effective value of that contract. I'm probably in a best case just trying to get back that nominal payment.

Edit: For that messed up install I had with Sunrun and PG&E... one of the things I did in mid 2020 was to pay them the full "contracted" cost of the project up front. This was after Sunrun knew what they needed to do, but PG&E was the blocker on policies. I did this to lock into pricing for PWs, labor, and materials. This also put Sunrun and me on the same side to go to bat against PG&E. I could go after Sunrun for failing to perform if they abandoned the PV+ESS project or abandoned my the fight with PG&E... and now the damages are real and easy to quantify since I had given up on other PV+ESS vendor quotes when I selected Sunrun.

 

[holeydonut]

Suing Tesla doesn’t sound like an option, because I haven’t been ‘damaged’ but that is some shady business practice going on. I am long time supporter with lots of stock and a model 3.

Some have interpreted that you would suffer damage if Tesla changed the terms on you now that you're in the process. It may still be worthwhile to consult to know your options if the time comes. Of course we hope that you're not going to get that email and Tesla will continue on course with the previously established expectations.

 

[wjgjr]

Yeah, I think that's where you and I differ... but I do hope the people who need a lawyer to help push Tesla to honor damages can find someone who sees it from your perspective. Ideally someone out there will help seek recovery for the expected damages as you outlined.

Separately, I still think the FTC should be made aware of this business practice even if the agency cannot help the individual(s).

I'm in the cynical-camp... these Tesla contracts were described as "short" and written where only Tesla had input to the terms. They put maximum flexibility in there for themselves and minimized their exposure to breach. Similarly, I believe that if I had a short gold futures contract that you wrote up and nominal cash consideration paid to you for consideration. Then if something went awry with the example agreement, I'd have a hard time finding an arbitrator to determine in my favor that you owed me the full effective value of that contract. I'm probably in a best case just trying to get back that nominal payment.

I think the law is pretty clear on when a contract exists. As an example:

Most contracts only need to contain two elements to be legally valid:

• All parties must be in agreement (after an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the other).
• Something of value must be exchanged -- such as cash, services, or goods (or a promise to exchange such an item) -- for something else of value.

The general point being that the promise to exchange goods is sufficient to establish a contract, with all of the consequences for breaching it attaching as soon as the agreement is in place.

So I don't see that as being the issue for anybody seeking to pursue their claims. I think the many other issues - whether Tesla actually breached, whether the liability limits in the contract are an issue, and the arbitration clause, among others - will be the bigger hurdles. I do hope some pursue this, but I expect many will just find it not worth the time and effort to pursue individual claims, which is completely understandable. And, as such, it would be interesting to see if the government is involved (if not the US, California doesn't seem to be a fan of Tesla these days.)

Interestingly, your point about Tesla writing the contract in their favor does have the potential to come back to bite them. Should a court see these as contracts of adhesion that are unfairly drafted with provisions in favor of Tesla, they could void those. Again, it seems an unlikely outcome.

 

[bayareaever]

I

Some have interpreted that you would suffer damage if Tesla changed the terms on you now that you're in the process. It may still be worthwhile to consult to know your options if the time comes. Of course we hope that you're not going to get that email and Tesla will continue on course with the previously established expectations.

i can only hope it’s a small % of contacts being increased because the whole thing is too shady. This thread sure doesn’t make it look like though.

my roof was previously rejected twice (2019, early 2020) for being too complex. They’re obviously trying to expand the market by accepting more complex roofs like mine but then maybe realizing labor is too expensive, plus increased material cost. This is all very Muskian which means it will probably work out in the end....hopefully!!

 

[holeydonut]

I think the law is pretty clear on when a contract exists. As an example:


The general point being that the promise to exchange goods is sufficient to establish a contract, with all of the consequences for breaching it attaching as soon as the agreement is in place.

So I don't see that as being the issue for anybody seeking to pursue their claims. I think the many other issues - whether Tesla actually breached, whether the liability limits in the contract are an issue, and the arbitration clause, among others - will be the bigger hurdles. I do hope some pursue this, but I expect many will just find it not worth the time and effort to pursue individual claims, which is completely understandable. And, as such, it would be interesting to see if the government is involved (if not the US, California doesn't seem to be a fan of Tesla these days.)

Interestingly, your point about Tesla writing the contract in their favor does have the potential to come back to bite them. Should a court see these as contracts of adhesion that are unfairly drafted with provisions in favor of Tesla, they could void those. Again, it seems an unlikely outcome.

I thought we agreed that there was a contract already and assumed Tesla was in breach of it. I agree with you there is a real contract in play and disclosures that a reasonable person would consider to be a contract. Even without the $100 deposit, I feel most of the reasonable homeowners affected by this would view themselves as "harmed".

I'm saying that I don't see enough damages for a business lawyer to help with their normal fee structure (~30% vig/contingency). And, I would find it surprising if an arbitrator ruled that Tesla had to either execute the original terms of the agreement; or pay damages for the difference in value between the original cost and the new/updated cost.

But deep down, I think Tesla's perspective they are not actually in breach (of a contract that does exist). They're citing roof complexity by pointing people to that link about the "tiers". They're allowing the homeowner the opportunity to choose not to go forward in light of this new news and new price under the existing contract.

The part I don't like (edit: aside from the price increase) is "We will be prioritizing customers based on the order in which they accept their updated agreements." That means people like bill_woolf could go to the back of the line behind new people who have only seen the higher price if bill doesn't accept fast enough. Like... wtf.

 

[dareed1]

I haven't seen these contracts (and I have no interest in seeing one), but apparently there is no specified date for performance. That is, there is nothing to say when Tesla will install the roof. If that is true, then it isn't clear to me how anyone can claim significant expectation damages. And a case can be made that even if Tesla chooses to delay an install at the original price for, say, 10 years, they haven't breached.

Also, IANAL, but I believe that one of the requirements for a valid contract is that both parties are exposed to similar financial pain if they breach the contract. Here, the buyer can cancel the order anytime before the installation and lose $100. Some posts above are suggesting Tesla should be liable for many thousands of dollars if they cancel. This would be a very asymmetric outcome.

Of course, none the above addresses the ethics of the situation.