Tesla Model X Cancellation

[AnxietyRanger]

1) If you don't get what you ordered you can clearly refuse to take delivery. There are no two ways about that.
2) I am sure Tesla would have dealt with it differently if OP had not made stupid demands of LD
3) Clearly Tesla has the right to cancel any reservation, I would have done the same
4) Acting on one's contractual right is never discriminatory
I for one would have taken delivery, and get brand new seats whenever, so less wear and tear, after a few months. Good deal for me I would think.

Move on and spare us the complaining. It is by your own doing.

1) It seems unclear if the option to refuse delivery was promptly offered, though? That is one of his complaints, right, that things weren't upfront about?
2) Maybe. That doesn't mean Tesla's reaction necessarily was the wisest one either. We would need more information to ascertain that.
3) Model X reservation, so far, seems to be a completely separate issue that was not under dispute - escalating a Model S issue to that, at the very least, doesn't sound absolutely necessary.
4) Law might govern that differently in some cases, but I agree in this case Tesla probably had a legal right.

For whatever reason, Tesla chose against taking the "commercial way out" on this one. I hope it doesn't backfire on them.

 

[Beryl]

I for one would have taken delivery, and get brand new seats whenever, so less wear and tear, after a few months. Good deal for me I would think.

Ditto. I did the same a couple of times when purchasing houses -- got commitments in writing and went to closing. One time required a visit by my attorney to satisfy the previous owner's commitment (a bank) but the builder of the second house promptly handled everything. In either case, there was no need to make threats on social media. But that's me.

I don't blame TM for distancing themselves from litigious customers.

 

[Auzie]

He paid for a very expensive car and didn't get the right features, and the seats are important aren't they? I'd say he is the victim. Not handling the situation right doesn't change that fact does it?

Montauto, you need to look at the bright side. You don't own a Tesla. People on this forum seem to think Tesla has "made it" and they're not at risk, but they are definitely at risk, and you may get the last laugh if Tesla goes under. Another thing is that it looks like there are lots of competitors coming soon - so you can wait and buy from someone else (and from a much larger company like VW or GM) without the risk of winding up owning a car with no living manufacturer.

And as for losing money, well, we all lost money (I'm referring to the pre-autopilot owners like me). Being the first duck in the pond is a horrendous risk, and you shouldn't take it without accepting you're going to pay for it somehow. My 1 year old car is worth 30k less than it was a year ago. That's a hell of a depreciation!!!

Personally I'm going enjoy my car for a few years and see what shakes out. My next car will drive itself. It may or may not be a Tesla. I still love the car, but you found out that Tesla is just another "big car company", and they're not much different when it comes down to it from GM or any other. Stand in their way, you get run over.

Note: underline is mine.

Electricfan, I find it hard to believe that you really wrote that bright side is that someone gets to laugh when Tesla goes under.

Why would anyone laugh if Tesla goes under, what good can possibly come out of such outcome for anyone? I hope you will come back and say that you did not mean it the way it comes across.

 

[AlMc]

Interesting thread: Came to this one late but will share my opinion anyway.:wink: I have a service business, as someone upstream indicated, you do spend 90% of your time trying to please 5% of your clients. Those 5% are not worth all that time, even if it was your 'fault' that caused the issue. It is better to end the relationship, usually for both parties, in the short and long run.

I took delivery of my P85D without the ordered next Gen seats, as someone posted upstream, I have bought other cars and homes with 'punch lists'. I was given the option, at the time of purchase/delivery, to wait on delivery if I wanted all the items on the 'punch list' completed.

If I felt as strongly as the OP about the lack of the ordered seats I would have refused delivery and taken my money elsewhere. Threaten suit, please......Our society is too quick to 'sue'. Move on, life is too short.

I hold a very small amount of TSLA but I say TM represented my shares well in this case.

 

[Zythryn]

...
I for one would have taken delivery, and get brand new seats whenever, so less wear and tear, after a few months. Good deal for me I would think.

Move on and spare us the complaining. It is by your own doing.

To be fair, he is probably used to dealing with standard auto dealers where doing so would be a hassle, if even possible.
Many of us have been spoiled by the great treatment we get from both Tesla and their service centers.

Communication can be rough and they need to work on that.
So very much better than dealing with stealerships

 

[ToddRLockwood]

Montauto, it appears that this is all about YOU. Several thousand Model S customers have patiently waited in line to receive their Next Gen seats. Would you have preferred that Tesla not release any of those vehicles until the seat supplier gets caught up? The supplier over-promised and under-deliverd, but Tesla gave priority to getting cars to customers on time. Next Gen seats are being installed at the service centers as they become available, at considerable expense to Tesla. This is being done in the order that the vehicles were manufactured. There's no priority given to customers who make more noise about it or threaten legal action.

 

[jimmyjohn]

Montauto and Electicfan, I wish I could sue you for the opportunity cost of the last 10 minutes I've wasted reading this thread to conclude, objectively, that you need therapy more than a lawyer.

 

[Neech]

Montauto sounds like a whinny, over-privileged .01%er having a temper tantrum. HOWEVER, he also owns a car dealership, a business model Tesla is not following, so he may also be trying to create a lot of FUD to muddy their future. Kudos to Tesla for taking a stand against Montauto's tactics.

 

[bonnie]

I am not claiming the dealership system would prevent it in all cases, let alone am I for the dealership system. Very much the contrary.

I fear it is not a black and white issue like you make it sound like. A monopoly player (just in the sense that they control the new product channel entirely in many states) in a consumer business will always get more scrutiny and that already puts Tesla's close-to-vest model in a different light. But in this case said monopoly player (Tesla) is also fighting an established, more diversified system (no matter what the reality is, that will be the perception they can paint) in the process that is trying to get legislators on their side. Tesla is also offering a product with government subsidies.

I fear the dealerships might be able to argue they are needed for protection against arbitrary decisions by the sole seller and get someone to legislate accordingly.

I think you're confused on what 'monopoly' means. If Tesla was the ONLY place you could buy a car, then that's a monopoly. Claiming that status for them just because it's the only place you can buy a Tesla? That doesn't make them a monopoly. 'Monopoly' implies they are not subject to supply and demand pressures, because they own all the supply.

There are plenty of problems that dealerships have caused, but public opinion would go down even further (if that's possible), were they to try to claim Tesla was a monopoly.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

After attempting to resolve a business matter in a very reasonable fashion...

The fact that you think this actually happened, speaks volumes.

 

[Merrill]

I'm going to say this again, and I agree with the fact that you did not get the proper seats. The real issue is how you approached the problem and your language used to try to get what you want. I would have taken delivery and waited for the proper seats which you would get at some point. I had issues with my car when I took delivery and in the last 2 years all the problems that came up were handled to my satisfaction. As I have previously stated before you will get further in life by being courteous and kind to people. If you have been in business and had someone complain the worst thing you can do is get into a heated argument, it is human nature to respond to negativity with negativity, it is a dead end.

 

[Krugerrand]

For whatever reason, Tesla chose against taking the "commercial way out" on this one. I hope it doesn't backfire on them.

For 'whatever' reason? As if the reason has somehow escaped you? I'm going to give you more credit than that given that I know you like to analyze things to death and then well into the afterlife. ONE person has had their reservation cancelled out of tens of thousands. In no way has Tesla established any sort of 'non commercial' pattern and it's more than likely (and you know this) that Tesla's council advised they cut all dealings with this individual to avoid further time consuming, resource wasting, litigious energy on an individual who demonstrated an inability to behave in a reasonable manner.

And before you get on the 'I'm only on Tesla's side' horse, I'll be very specific for you - No, I'm not. People should get what they order and pay for from a company regardless of the cost of the item. That's only fair. Someone made an error at Tesla by not uniformly making sure that customers knew there were issues regarding the seats; original seats denied by Elon? for not rating 5*'s in safety, redesigned seats delayed because of port issues, total underestimation of just how many people were going to want the new seats.

There were plenty of people here upset about the seat issue and while I did not support some of the behavior, tactics, or expression in written word, virtually everyone managed to come to some sort of satisfactory arrangement with Tesla. Maybe in your world coming out of the gate threatening a lawsuit (of any kind) is reasonable behavior, in mine it's childish and selfish, and should be considered only when every other avenue has been pursued and given a chance.

This particular person having their X reservation cancelled isn't going to backfire on Tesla and to suggest otherwise is simply letting your imagination run wild. He's already bragging about being able to get an X under someone else's name. Who posts stuff like that on the Internet? (Rhetorical question).

- - - Updated - - -

Electricfan, I find it hard to believe that you really wrote that bright side is that someone gets to laugh when Tesla goes under.

Why would anyone laugh if Tesla goes under, what good can possibly come out of such outcome for anyone? I hope you will come back and say that you did not mean it the way it comes across.

There are lots who would laugh and relish in that kind of outcome.

 

[dsm363]

A gun at them? Really?

I would assume that is a metaphor. You really missed that?

 

[Beryl]

Montauto sounds like a whinny, over-privileged .01%er having a temper tantrum. HOWEVER, he also owns a car dealership, a business model Tesla is not following, so he may also be trying to create a lot of FUD to muddy their future. Kudos to Tesla for taking a stand against Montauto's tactics.

If Tesla was aware of the emboldened, it likely factored into the cancellation decision.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I think you're confused on what 'monopoly' means. If Tesla was the ONLY place you could buy a car, then that's a monopoly. Claiming that status for them just because it's the only place you can buy a Tesla? That doesn't make them a monopoly. 'Monopoly' implies they are not subject to supply and demand pressures, because they own all the supply.

There are plenty of problems that dealerships have caused, but public opinion would go down even further (if that's possible), were they to try to claim Tesla was a monopoly.

No need to be confused or condescending. I explained my intent right there in parenthesis:

monopoly player (just in the sense that they control the new product channel entirely in many states)

Call it exclusivity if it suits you better. My point remains the same.

- - - Updated - - -

I would assume that is a metaphor. You really missed that?

Of course it was a metaphor. In my opinion a ridiculously OTT one.

 

[bonnie]

No need to be confused or condescending. I explained my intent right there in parenthesis:

monopoly player (just in the sense that they control the new product channel entirely in many states)

Call it exclusivity if it suits you better. My point remains the same.

And no need to characterize my differing opinion as condescending. This isn't the first time you've chosen to attach motivations to my responses. I'm allowed to disagree. I didn't attack you, nor was I condescending.

Exclusivity, monopoly ... I still disagree. I can only buy Amazon-branded products through Amazon. They don't have a monopoly nor an exclusive arrangement. I can buy similar products other places. They don't own that part of the market & neither does Tesla own the EV market (except in the sense they totally nailed it, but that's a diff discussion).

There are plenty of manufacturers that control HOW their products are sold. It doesn't make them a monopoly. It just means they have total control of their distribution model.

Telephone companies, for instance, in the past had regional monopolies. If you wanted telephone service, you had no choice. You bought their service or you did without. Deregulation happened - plenty of competitors. Tesla has competition. Supply chain & distribution model doesn't make a company a monopoly.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

And no need to characterize my differing opinion as condescending. This isn't the first time you've chosen to attach motivations to my responses. I'm allowed to disagree. I didn't attack you, nor was I condescending. ...

Telephone companies, for instance, in the past had regional monopolies. If you wanted telephone service, you had no choice. You bought their service or you did without. Deregulation happened - plenty of competitors. Tesla has competition. Supply chain & distribution model doesn't make a company a monopoly.

Suggesting confusion on my part about the word monopoly with an irrelevant tangent, when I had attached a clear explanation of my intent in parenthesis, sounded - and still sounds - either condescending or confused to me. Nowhere did I suggest Tesla would be a monopoly in that sense of the word you went on to describe.

As for the argument of Tesla's exclusivity not hurting their position, I would agree if, say Tesla was using an entrenched business model in their industry - I said as much when I said:

In an entrenched industry I wouldn't think twice of it, but Tesla is fighting - and is being fought back by - an established system that might be able to point out consumer has more options with that system than with a monopoly (on new model cars in this case) seller.

(Monopoly meaning exclusivity above. Not market dominance.)

The problem in Tesla's case is the business they are in: cars. And cars have traditionally been sold through dealers, who are fighting Tesla in the courts and legislatures, trying to prove they provide an invaluable layer of abstraction between the consumer and the manufacturer. If Tesla shuts out customers as the sole seller and sole arbiter, that might be the kind of precedent that a sympathetic state congressman somewhere would be willing to hear out and argue onwards that a choice of dealerships, with cars on the lot and all, would fix. No matter if true or not.

I hope my concern is clear. I get it that you don't share it.

 

[AlMc]

Suggesting confusion on my part about the word monopoly with an irrelevant tangent, when I had attached a clear explanation of my intent in parenthesis, sounded - and still sounds - either condescending or confused to me. Nowhere did I suggest Tesla would be a monopoly in that sense of the word you went on to describe.

As for the argument of Tesla's exclusivity not hurting their position, I would agree if, say Tesla was using an entrenched business model in their industry - I said as much when I said:



(Monopoly meaning exclusivity above. Not market dominance.)

The problem in Tesla's case is the business they are in: cars. And cars have traditionally been sold through dealers, who are fighting Tesla in the courts and legislatures, trying to prove they provide an invaluable layer of abstraction between the consumer and the manufacturer. If Tesla shuts out customers as the sole seller and sole arbiter, that might be the kind of precedent that a sympathetic state congressman somewhere would be willing to hear out and argue onwards that a choice of dealerships, with cars on the lot and all, would fix. No matter if true or not.

I hope my concern is clear. I get it that you don't share it.

AR: I get your concern but since we have no evidence that this is s pattern, multiple people having a similar problem, I am not as concerned about it as you. Currently it is a non issue.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

For 'whatever' reason? As if the reason has somehow escaped you? I'm going to give you more credit than that given that I know you like to analyze things to death and then well into the afterlife. ONE person has had their reservation cancelled out of tens of thousands. In no way has Tesla established any sort of 'non commercial' pattern and it's more than likely (and you know this) that Tesla's council advised they cut all dealings with this individual to avoid further time consuming, resource wasting, litigious energy on an individual who demonstrated an inability to behave in a reasonable manner.

And before you get on the 'I'm only on Tesla's side' horse, I'll be very specific for you - No, I'm not. People should get what they order and pay for from a company regardless of the cost of the item. That's only fair. Someone made an error at Tesla by not uniformly making sure that customers knew there were issues regarding the seats; original seats denied by Elon? for not rating 5*'s in safety, redesigned seats delayed because of port issues, total underestimation of just how many people were going to want the new seats.

There were plenty of people here upset about the seat issue and while I did not support some of the behavior, tactics, or expression in written word, virtually everyone managed to come to some sort of satisfactory arrangement with Tesla. Maybe in your world coming out of the gate threatening a lawsuit (of any kind) is reasonable behavior, in mine it's childish and selfish, and should be considered only when every other avenue has been pursued and given a chance.

This particular person having their X reservation cancelled isn't going to backfire on Tesla and to suggest otherwise is simply letting your imagination run wild. He's already bragging about being able to get an X under someone else's name. Who posts stuff like that on the Internet? (Rhetorical question).

Nowhere did I suggest there was a pattern. I don't know if this has happened before and, actually, neither do you. It might be frequent, it might be the first time. My concern is with this individual case and I've made that clear, at least by now if not before.

Also, nowhere did I say I liked what this guy is doing. I merely noted, given the available information, Tesla made a large leap from a Model S dispute (and settling that somehow), to actually cancelling an apparently unrelated reservation. Someone might have controversial opinions about such a move as well. I don't see the case, given available information, as very clear cut. What I do see is people making judgement calls on very limited information mostly based on their bias - if you love Tesla, you hate the guy, if you hate Tesla, you love the guy kind of stuff.

I don't know what to think of the guy. Frankly, I don't care much. But I do worry about the precedent. Hopefully for naught.

Any need to repeat the point in this thread has merely been misunderstanding and/or mischaracterizations by others. I am not trying to make it into a big deal. A few people have nodded in agreement over my point, most have not, and that's fine. I hope you are right.

- - - Updated - - -

AR: I get your concern but since we have no evidence that this is s pattern, multiple people having a similar problem, I am not as concerned about it as you. Currently it is a non issue.

That is a fair comment. I agree.

 

[eye.surgeon]

View attachment 76189

Removed my personal info from the file.

Attached is the email I have received....

Real quick the story:

Got P85+ in September 2014

Traded P85+ and Ordered P85D in Oct 2014 with Next Gen seats

Received P85D with the old seats without anyone from Tesla to notify me.

Didn't accept delivery and the whole thing started ...

No one from Tesla was able to provide any estimate of when I can get the seats replaced.

Offered resolution to Tesla: Built the car I ordered and paid for, provide rental in the mean time and agree if you fail again to pay $30k liquidated damages.

Tesla refused.

Tesla took back the P85D and on top of that cancelled my Model X reservation.

Now I have electric charger / Wall connector at home, but no Tesla car and I lost lots of money on the trade and on lawyers.

Good for Tesla. They just went up one notch in my book. They got rid of one PITA customer and moved a whole bunch of decent people up on the waiting list all in one shot.