Tesla bans Stewart Alsop from buying Model X

[stopcrazypp]

It would seem essential for Elon to issue a public statement about the precise reason (s) he banned Alsop.

I'm pretty sure the public already forgot about this. Unless a reporter asks Elon, I doubt he will bring it up.

 

[Haggy]

False. Freedom Of Speech does not mean Freedom From Consequences, it only means Freedom From Government Retaliation.

Back when I managed a KFC a customer started cussing out my cashier, yet she'd given him exactly what he'd ordered (I was out of sight, but within earshot and heard the entire transaction). While he was free to say what he said, the consequences were I kicked him out of the restaurant.

That customer was infringing on your right to do business, and prevented other customers from getting what they paid for. They have the right to an atmosphere that's free from that sort of disturbance. You wouldn't have been able to remove that customer simply because you felt like it and because you had a sign on the wall that said that you reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. You had the right to remove the customer because you had due cause.

That's different from what's going on in this case, and it's clear to me that Musk had the right to do what he did, even if I would consider it a bad business decision.

 

[stopcrazypp]

People always get freedom of speech mixed up. Freedom of speech only protects you from the government censorship. It does not prevent a private business from doing so. There are a lot of forums and websites where comments are moderated and can be removed and censored for any reason (including simply the moderator not agreeing with your points).

 

[Haggy]

People always get freedom of speech mixed up. Freedom of speech only protects you from the government censorship. It does not prevent a private business from doing so. There are a lot of forums and websites where comments are moderated and can be removed and censored for any reason (including simply the moderator not agreeing with your points).

That's true but it has nothing to do with this issue. And this issue has nothing to do with whether Tesla could have canceled a confirmed order. It also has nothing to do with whether it was a smart business decision or whether Musk breached his fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to make money.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That's true but it has nothing to do with this issue. And this issue has nothing to do with whether Tesla could have canceled a confirmed order. It also has nothing to do with whether it was a smart business decision or whether Musk breached his fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to make money.

I agree it is off topic, I just wanted to put it out there since it is such a common misconception that Tam was using as a way to say it was illegal for Tesla to ban this customer.

As for the other point, I think banning him probably costs the company less money than having him as a customer. Anyone that has done business that interacts with customers knows there are particularly troublesome ones that will cost you far more time and money than the transaction is worth.

 

[4SUPER9]

... You wouldn't have been able to remove that customer simply because you felt like it and because you had a sign on the wall that said that you reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. You had the right to remove the customer because you had due cause.

Are you sure about that? This goes against what I have been saying here. I do not believe due cause is required. Whether or not a business has "that sign" up or not, my understandings is that they can refuse service to anyone, at anytime, unless their reasoning is against someone that is in a protected class.

I agree it is off topic...

Actually, I think most of this discussion has been on-topic (exclusive of which one of us is the true Queen of England). This is about freedom of speech (Alsop's blog) and Musk's/Tesla's right to do business with whom they choose. It's a good discussion (for the most part). I would love to have a constitutional lawyer chime in, instead of my half-baked commentary.

 

[mmccord]

Are you sure about that? This goes against what I have been saying here. I do not believe due cause is required. Whether or not a business has "that sign" up or not, my understandings is that they can refuse service to anyone, at anytime, unless their reasoning is against someone that is in a protected class.

You are correct. Nobody is forced to do business with anyone else in the US (with certain exclusions, primarily discrimination against protected classes).

I am uniquely aware of this. Not to get into my personal finances too much, but several large banks have chosen to not do business with me, and they are entirely within their rights. They don't like it when you beat them at their own games. Casinos don't like it either..

 

[Haggy]

Are you sure about that? This goes against what I have been saying here. I do not believe due cause is required. Whether or not a business has "that sign" up or not, my understandings is that they can refuse service to anyone, at anytime, unless their reasoning is against someone that is in a protected class.

I can't speak for every state, and I'm sure you'd get less sympathy in some than in others. In California, if you advertise something for sale, you can't arbitrarily refuse to sell it to somebody. Reserving the right to refuse service to anybody does exactly that. Kicking somebody out because that person is causing a disruption is warranted, but simply deciding that you don't want to sell something to somebody, and presumably selling it to somebody else, is false advertising. Also, it makes little sense to refuse to serve somebody arbitrarily.

There have been cases where people have sued on principle because they don't like signs that refuse to serve people without shoes. Claiming that the Board of Health has such a rule doesn't help, since they don't. It's fine to have a consistent dress code that assures a certain level of formality, but allowing sandals or dirty shoes but not bare feet is something different. In other states, I can see a judge tossing something like that out faster than a person can make an opening argument. It all depends where you live, but there should be a sane reason why you won't sell something.

 

[4SUPER9]

... simply deciding that you don't want to sell something to somebody, and presumably selling it to somebody else, is false advertising. Also, it makes little sense to refuse to serve somebody arbitrarily.

This makes sense and I think I believe that. Then again, common sense does not always apply with the law! My guess is that we do not hear about such cases because if a business decides not to make a sale or provide a service to somebody, one would figure that they must have SOME reason. Now, the reason can be valid (rude customer), invalid (discriminatory/racist) or just plane ridiculous. But no reason at all? That would not make any business sense, so why would they?

 

[Haggy]

This makes sense and I think I believe that. Then again, common sense does not always apply with the law! My guess is that we do not hear about such cases because if a business decides not to make a sale or provide a service to somebody, one would figure that they must have SOME reason. Now, the reason can be valid (rude customer), invalid (discriminatory/racist) or just plane ridiculous. But no reason at all? That would not make any business sense, so why would they?

They probably wouldn't and there would be a strong possibility that the feeling would be mutual. If a store refused to serve me an ice cream cone, not only wouldn't I take the time to sue them, I'd take my business elsewhere and encourage others to do the same.

There are businesses that fall short of refusing to serve somebody but that make it rather uncomfortable. For example, they may have security follow a person around a store, or they may tell a customer that they don't let people test drive the car unless they are a serious buyer.

I would imagine that there are businesses that turn people away for reasons completely unrelated to the business. If a potential customer has a grudge against an acquaintance, and the acquaintance is a clerk in a store, I could see there being some friction even if the clerk wouldn't have the authority to make business decisions. But what if it's the owner and he sees somebody who was a bully back in high school? If he kicked her out, I doubt it would lead to a lawsuit.

 

[bonnie]

Hmmm. I wonder if I had a suit with the pretzel stand that refused to sell me one of the fresh pretzels until they'd sold all the older ones. I wanted one of the fresh ones, that's what drew me over. But they refused to sell me those. So I walked away.

Did I have a case? False advertising!

 

[4SUPER9]

Hmmm. I wonder if I had a suit with the pretzel stand that refused to sell me one of the fresh pretzels until they'd sold all the older ones. I wanted one of the fresh ones, that's what drew me over. But they refused to sell me those. So I walked away.

Did I have a case? False advertising!

I wouldn't know. Pretzels have too many carbs for me.

 

[bhzmark]

I can't speak for every state, and I'm sure you'd get less sympathy in some than in others. In California, if you advertise something for sale, you can't arbitrarily refuse to sell it to somebody. Reserving the right to refuse service to anybody does exactly that. Kicking somebody out because that person is causing a disruption is warranted, but simply deciding that you don't want to sell something to somebody, and presumably selling it to somebody else, is false advertising. Also, it makes little sense to refuse to serve somebody arbitrarily.

There have been cases where people have sued on principle because they don't like signs that refuse to serve people without shoes. Claiming that the Board of Health has such a rule doesn't help, since they don't. It's fine to have a consistent dress code that assures a certain level of formality, but allowing sandals or dirty shoes but not bare feet is something different. In other states, I can see a judge tossing something like that out faster than a person can make an opening argument. It all depends where you live, but there should be a sane reason why you won't sell something.

Citations?

 

[Chickenlittle]

Hmmm. I wonder if I had a suit with the pretzel stand that refused to sell me one of the fresh pretzels until they'd sold all the older ones. I wanted one of the fresh ones, that's what drew me over. But they refused to sell me those. So I walked away.

Did I have a case? False advertising!

A more cruel way to have handled the situation would have been to just not build the car and have him wait till he demanded money back

 

[rosinchard]

In California, if you advertise something for sale, you can't arbitrarily refuse to sell it to somebody.

Citation?

 

[Canuck]

Citation?

The Unruh Civil Rights Act protects all persons against arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination by a business establishment (Civil Code section 51).

DFEH - Unruh Civil Rights Act

(I probably shouldn't answer for him but this is the only Act he can possibly be referring to.)

 

[4SUPER9]

The Unruh Civil Rights Act protects all persons against arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination by a business establishment (Civil Code section 51).

DFEH - Unruh Civil Rights Act

(I probably shouldn't answer for him but this is the only Act he can possibly be referring to.)

The text of your link is as follows. Emphasis added. It certainly does not protect anyone who is being rude, obnoxious, etc.

This law provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because of:

• Age
• Ancestry
• Color
• Disability
• Genetic Information
• Medical Condition (cancer and genetic characteristics)
• Marital Status
• National Origin
• Race
• Religion
• Sex (which includes pregnancy, childbirth, medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth, gender, gender identity and gender expression)
• Sexual Orientation
• Citizenship
• Primary Language
• Immigration Status

However California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics. The Act is meant to cover all arbitrary and intentional discrimination by a business establishment on the bases of personal characteristics similar to those listed above.

 

[bonnie]

Just want to point out that I was perfectly polite, but they still had a right not to sell me one of the nice fresh pretzels. Because they wanted to sell the stale ones first. And then, of course, the fresh ones would have become stale.

And so the cycle continues ....

 

[Canuck]

The text of your link is as follows. Emphasis added. It certainly does not protect anyone who is being rude, obnoxious, etc.

If someone is being rude or obnoxious then discriminating against them is not arbitrary or unreasonable so the Unruh Civil Rights Act has no application. The problem with the Act, as I see it, is that it allows for a complaint to be filed and a hearing on that issue. Being rude and obnoxious can be subjective and I find that arbitrators and tribunals that hear these types of complaints find merit in them as a way of self-preservation. The more successful complaints, the more work they get, and the more need for the Act.

Call me cynical but we have similar legislation in BC and the reported cases make me shake my head more often than not. All taxpayer funded dollars -- gone to waste if you ask me (and I know no one asked).

Just want to point out that I was perfectly polite, but they still had a right not to sell me one of the nice fresh pretzels. Because they wanted to sell the stale ones first. And then, of course, the fresh ones would have become stale.

And so the cycle continues ....

Again, not arbitrary or unreasonable to want to sell the older stock first. But you are making me hungry!

 

[S'toon]

I wouldn't know. Pretzels have too many carbs for me.

Yeah, me too. :crying: