For example, wjgjr has set his line with a signed contract. So I believe, he would be ok with qualified leads getting this email (interested party who haven't signed a contract yet). But I set my line where on-site work has commenced on a project.
The line is the breach of a signed contract, because expectation damages are defined as "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." They do not depend on how far along the contract is (unlike reliance damages, which do tend to increase as the contract goes along.) Until a contract is signed, yes, Tesla would have the legal right to do what they want with pricing (unless they have some pricing guarantee that they offer to customers.) I also just verified that for my contract, it is explicit that the agreement "is effective on the date you agree to this Agreement." So Tesla cannot claim that the contract effective date is later (such as when on-site work starts) to avoid damages.
In my opinion tesla is utilizing the clause for the location. They clearly came out with a new tool indicating roof complexity when signing up. After reviewing orders previously placed and applying the new tool for each location the estimate goes up due to installation complexity. As with all contracts for construction “unforeseen” items are almost always present.
Of all whom signed contracts how many of you answered “yes” to the question that was something like “If additional reasonable repairs or costs are encountered will “you” be able to move forward?
I’m in no way defending Tesla here just pointing out that litigation most likely will be thrown out. Just my .02 cents.
This is certainly an approach Tesla could take, though I think there are some good counter-arguments. First, Tesla has increased the costs for all complexeties, including simple ones. If they can't even do a simple roof for the old pricing, this indicates more is at play. And, by (it seems) applying a formulaic increase, this indicates a new estimate and not an adjustment specific to the contract. Second, Tesla has been installing these roofs for some time - it is hard to imagine an across-the-board "unforeseen events at the installation location" that would explain this. More likely, some combination of material price increases or a recognition that they were under-bidding (either intentionally to attract business or due to underestimating difficulty) is at play. Third, it may be that some of these contracts have already had Tesla employees out to review.
Whoever might prevail, I think it is a good point that any litigation would not be a slam dunk for the customer since Tesla can present at least plausible defenses and has the resources to do so.
If the subcontractors increased their installation prices, would Tesla be legally authorized to change their contracts with their customers. Did they include a fine Print in their contract with customers to let them change and increase the price at any time for any reason?
The "causes a change to the solar portion" language seems the closest to this, though I do not read it that way. There is no explicit statement in the contract I signed that allows them to increase prices for no reason (including no statement allowing them to raise prices because materials have become more expensive.) The clause on pricing seems to provide them the two outs for the unforeseen conditions or changes to the solar portion, which is why a lot of discussion has focused on that language.
As with the above comment on the unforeseen conditions, it certainly illustrates that establishing a breach occurred would not be a simple exercise.