-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Solar Roof, big price increase
- Thread starter nicholb
- Start date
Saw this this morning:
www.businessinsider.com
After Tesla increased the price of a Solar Roof project by more than $30,000, homeowners explain why they have filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract
After waiting six months for their new Solar Roof, a Pennsylvania couple said Tesla informed them of a significant price hike.
www.businessinsider.com
After Tesla increased the price of a Solar Roof project by more than $30,000, homeowners explain why they have filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract
After waiting six months for their new Solar Roof, a Pennsylvania couple said Tesla informed them of a significant price hike.
Their attorney, Peter Muhic, of LeVan Muhic Stapleton, said he’d heard from “numerous” homeowners in situations similar to Dahlin and Arndtsen. He declined to give a specific number.
“They advertise a very unique product that they claim is much better than other competing products,” Muhic told Insider on Thursday. “And we believe that they need to honor their contracts, and they have to perform as they had promised and agreed.”
Muhic would have to file a motion to have the case formally certified as a class action. The complaint said there are more than 100 potential class members who had signed contracts totalling more than $5 million.
jimm01
Member
I think my problems were the result of inexperience. Hopefully everyone has learned a lesson or two. Having watched an install I saw a lot of room for improvement and a lot of places to save cost. But I feel the product is viable.
Not sure where you got that. I moved your post into the relevant discussion thread (where someone else had already mentioned the same topic). I can delete it if you would like, though. Maybe you posted it in another section first before it was moved to energy, where I combined it with the relevant discussion? I suspect thats what likely happened, but dont know. I just know that I saw it in tesla energy and combined it with the relevant discussion, which is likely why it was moved to this section in the first place.
Last edited:
I posted in the Tesla Investor thread asking whether the lawsuit was causing the stock price to fall. It was deleted for ‘FUD’
So nothing against you, but rather audiobon
The solar roof lawsuit is a slam dunk.
People fail to grasp that contract wording doesn’t absolve a party to statutory & common law
(moderator note: I will NOT let this thread (or section) get derailed. Just putting it out there, that I will likely be fairly aggressive in moderation to keep things from getting out of hand here.
That information is in another thread, here:
My Tesla Solar Roof is underperforming by at least 20%
Sorry to see all of the issues that you documented... it's now time to lawyer up! I've about reached that point—I just filed a complaint with SEIA. To make matters worse the roof is underperforming by at least 20%. I put in a service request and Tesla said they will do nothing since, in a...
teslamotorsclub.com
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
What does that mean... please define. I think that the referenced posts related to litigation in the media are germane to the discussion.
Thanks
Sorry I will not be able to explain in every circumstance I might need to moderate something. I will know it when I see it. The subject of litigation is part of this discussion, yes, however, it would depend on how its brought up, and what angle is used, etc. Thats just one example.
Of note, I have not stepped into this thread much previously.
willow_hiller
Well-Known Member
If this helps, the posts were drifting way off topic for this thread.
I had replied to one, and even though my post was removed I'm grateful for the moderation to keep the peace.
I had replied to one, and even though my post was removed I'm grateful for the moderation to keep the peace.
(moderator note: Just to be clear, my previous warning was not intended to stop people from discussing possible legal action against tesla, etc. That has been discussed all throughout this thread, and as long as its pertinent to the issue at hand and not just to incite others, its allowed, including, the business insider report posted a bit earlier in this thread).
jimm01
Member
I'm not an attorney but those who are can maybe spread some hypothetical light on the nuances and implications of court decision regarding class action lawsuits and arbitration.
I know there are decisions limiting, or possibly eliminating, class action arbitration, but I have no idea how these to apply other than to say that class action arbitration seems to highly improbable. However, I believe there is a fraud exception in Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Also, how does individual state law apply?
In any case, what if fraud can be demonstrated? Fraud can be as simple as misrepresenting facts. Since the escalated price of a Tesla Solar Roof effects the cost benefit ratio of any financial or energy recovery could a fraud exception apply? The hard part maybe in computing damages and applying the benefit-of-the-bargain rule because what are and how much are the out of pocket losses?
Finally, how does individual state law apply? I read where Pennsylvania’s consumer protection act restricts the use of arbitration clauses when “any deceptive conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding for a consumer is actionable under the provision, regardless of whether such conduct is committed intentionally (as in a fraudulent misrepresentation), carelessly (as in a negligent misrepresentation), or with the utmost care (as in strict liability).”
Consumer Protection Law Ruling Could Spell Big Trouble for Pa. Businesses | The Legal Intelligencer
Here in New Jersey the court stated the 'possible' need for a detailed language in an arbitration clause as a “detailed description of the contemplated arbitration in an arbitration agreement enhances the clarity of the agreement.” Which may hold Tesla more accountable to the language they use. The Tesla Solar Roof arbitration clause I read only mentions small claims, which is limited to claims of $3000.00 or less. Amounts greater than $3000.00 but less than $15,000 must be field in the Special Civil Part-Civil unit of the New Jersey Superior Court.
Any thoughts?
I know there are decisions limiting, or possibly eliminating, class action arbitration, but I have no idea how these to apply other than to say that class action arbitration seems to highly improbable. However, I believe there is a fraud exception in Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Also, how does individual state law apply?
In any case, what if fraud can be demonstrated? Fraud can be as simple as misrepresenting facts. Since the escalated price of a Tesla Solar Roof effects the cost benefit ratio of any financial or energy recovery could a fraud exception apply? The hard part maybe in computing damages and applying the benefit-of-the-bargain rule because what are and how much are the out of pocket losses?
Finally, how does individual state law apply? I read where Pennsylvania’s consumer protection act restricts the use of arbitration clauses when “any deceptive conduct that creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding for a consumer is actionable under the provision, regardless of whether such conduct is committed intentionally (as in a fraudulent misrepresentation), carelessly (as in a negligent misrepresentation), or with the utmost care (as in strict liability).”
Consumer Protection Law Ruling Could Spell Big Trouble for Pa. Businesses | The Legal Intelligencer
Here in New Jersey the court stated the 'possible' need for a detailed language in an arbitration clause as a “detailed description of the contemplated arbitration in an arbitration agreement enhances the clarity of the agreement.” Which may hold Tesla more accountable to the language they use. The Tesla Solar Roof arbitration clause I read only mentions small claims, which is limited to claims of $3000.00 or less. Amounts greater than $3000.00 but less than $15,000 must be field in the Special Civil Part-Civil unit of the New Jersey Superior Court.
Any thoughts?
I still think it comes down to damages. I don’t see how any court would force this contract to be honored as ‘damages’. Makes sense that Tesla offered to compensate for items and work people performed while preparing for the roof, but beyond that seems like a reach.
This comes from my years of knowledge from watching Judge Judy so not legal advice. I cancelled my order yesterday. Not worth the headache for me personally and I don’t feel comfortable having them do the work even if they were eventually forced to.
To each their own.
Not a lawyer, but in addition to the reliance damages, there is something called Expectation Damages which is based on the principle that once a contract is signed, if a party breaches, it needs to compensate the other party such that they are in the same place they were had the contract been completed. However, this would likely be cash. More directly to your question, Specific Performance exists as a remedy that could allow a court to force Tesla to complete the contract. It seems as if the attorney is suggesting this remedy given his reference to the "very unique product" and that they need to "perform as they promised and agreed." You raise a very valid point about why some may not want Tesla to complete the work, and that kind of concern is why specific performance is an unlikely remedy. The only other thing I could see would be the possibility of punitive damages if they "violated consumer protection acts" as the lawsuit claims.
I am not suggesting any of these arguments are necessarily likely to succeed, just that they exist, and I would assume the attorney will at this stage be putting forward all possible arguments with the hopes of improving their chances for a favorable settlement or judgement. And, as to the point raised above, some of these arguments may also be intended to help invalidate the arbitration clause, which will be necessary to allow most of these potential plaintiffs to proceed. Otherwise, the contract calls for binding, individual arbitration.
Similar threads
