Tesla Model X Cancellation

[Adm]

There is a point I miss in the discussion. Regardless of who is wrong and who is right in this discussion between company and client, we know Tesla has issues. Communication is sloppy at times, they are short on certain parts at times etc. For early adopters it is mostly part of the game and they know what they are in for. More and more "normal" buyers are now buying Tesla's and they have different expectations.
Tesla is not growing, but more exploding and it's hard to control an explosion as they found out in China (explosion turning into an implosion). Tesla will have to step up to protect its reputation to please as many of these customers as well.
Fascinating stuff. As usual Elon is not chosing the easy path. Great times to live in and get to observe this company.

 

[Canuck]

Montauto, you need to look at the bright side. You don't own a Tesla. 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.

Ha! GM going under -- there hasn't been a risk of that happening in recent memory. Plus, while I do think Tesla has made it and is not at risk of going under (at least for the foreseeable future), I didn't feel that way when I bought my car. Much like any innovative product in its early days (Apple comes to mind) there is a risk associated with buying it. But the "bright side" for me was owning a Tesla and that in itself was worth taking the risk. Now with the Supercharger network, and my ability to drive to LA for free with short stops for charging, I don't see how any other car maker can catch up for a very long time. Looking to GM or VW for electrical vehicles is the dark side to me -- not the bright side.

Also, words such as "monopoly" have distinct meanings and you can't just make up your own definitions for them. The way you use this word, it would apply to anyone who sells their own product or provides their own services. However, that is not what it means. It means that the actual product or service being providing is not sold by anyone else:

"mo·nop·o·ly - noun - the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service."

Tesla does not have a monopoly on electric cars.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Also, words such as "monopoly" have distinct meanings and you can't just make up your own definitions for them. The way you use this word, it would apply to anyone who sells their own product or provides their own services. However, that is not what it means. It means that the actual product or service being providing is not sold by anyone else:

"mo·nop·o·ly - noun - the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service."

Tesla does not have a monopoly on electric cars.

This is probably a reference to me since Electrifan didn't discuss monopolies. Perhaps you would be willing to give a pass to a non-English speaker, who qualifies a term with a description, thus making their intent clear? Considering my use of "monopoly" came with an added description in parenthesis. Context matters.

Tesla the company, in many markets, has an exclusive control of consumer sales of new Tesla electric vehicles. While that overall is not unusual for some other type of product, it is an exception in the car market based on independent dealerships, latter of which are waging a legislative campaign of "advocating for the consumer".

Tesla being the sole seller and sole arbiter of who is sold to, certainly would seem like an opportunity to "advocate for the consumer". That was my point, at least, nowhere did I - or anyone else I remember - say Tesla had a monopoly in the Standard Oil sense.

 

[WeazL]

As a business owner, I firmly agree to the philosophy that a business has the right to refuse service to anyone. Most businesses do not execute that action without good reason, as I wouldn't nor do I think Tesla would either. In general, that action has to be thoroughly provoked. I'll gladly sell my service to someone I don't like personally--business is business; However, at the point where an individual crosses a fine line and becomes threatening, abusive, disorderly, unreasonable, etc., is where I (and I believe most companies) will sever the business relationship with a client.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

As a business owner, I firmly agree to the philosophy that a business has the right to refuse service to anyone. Most businesses do not execute that action without good reason, as I wouldn't nor do I think Tesla would either. In general, that action has to be thoroughly provoked. I'll gladly sell my service to someone I don't like personally--business is business; However, at the point where an individual crosses a fine line and becomes threatening, abusive, disorderly, unreasonable, etc., is where I (and I believe most companies) will sever the business relationship with a client.

Just to be clear, because some are using fairly heavy and personal language, do we know if the OP guilty of being abusive and/or disorderly? We understand lawsuits were threatened, and at some points the dispute became public as well, but I think it would actually be useful to hear a summary of this offending action because so many people keep referring to it quite vocally. Threatening to escalate a business dispute to a court is hardly disorderly yet, although I understand once that step is done, it would be handed to the courts to deal with (I understand it didn't go to that).

What did the guy actually do?

The attachment on the emails say something about being pending approval or removal?

 

[Johan]

Just to be clear, because some are using fairly heavy and personal language, do we know if the OP guilty of being abusive and/or disorderly? We understand lawsuits were threatened, and at some points the dispute became public as well, but I think it would actually be useful to hear a summary of this offending action because so many people keep referring to it quite vocally. Threatening to escalate a business dispute to a court is hardly disorderly yet, although I understand once that step is done, it would be handed to the courts to deal with (I understand it didn't go to that).

What did the guy actually do?

The attachment on the emails say something about being pending approval or removal?

He demanded $30k in damages if Tesla didn't install his Next generation seats by a point in time he deemed appropriate.

This has nothing to do with being offensive or even reasonable/unreasonable. For Tesla to keep doing business with this person by selling him yet another car is too much of a risk so, since it was in Tesla's right to do so, the declined him further business by canceling his reservation and giving him a full refund. Nothing personal. Just plain business.

I don't feel sorry for him.

 

[WeazL]

None of us know the entire story--and I agree with AnxietyRanger--it would be nice to know the whole story here. Just to be clear, my statement is not insinuating that this individual acted in any one of the particulars listed, however, the point was that it typically takes an action to create a reaction of such magnitude. The actions listed are simply among the most common (IMHO) that are used by companies to justify the reasoning to react as such. :wink:

 

[Krugerrand]

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.

It's not a frequent occurrence and if you can't come to that reasonably and with common sense, I'm telling you straight up that it's not a frequent occurrence. Given the microscope Tesla is under and the lengths that some people go - like digging around in apps to discover unannounced options, or starting threads to dissect poor quality video photos to determine if a vehicle will have a toaster oven - if this was a frequent occurrence we'd know about it here, like yesterday.

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.

And I didn't say you said that you liked what the guy is doing. :wink: You did not 'merely note'. I find this an oft repeated example of you parsing information in an entirely out-in-left-field manner then reassembling it in a way that shares no semblance of the original.

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.

That's one way of looking at it, but what an oddly simplistic view coming from the guy who typically analyzes everything so (sometimes painfully) exquisitely. Let me suggest to you that this guy 'has a history', that he reveals himself quite obviously in his written word, and that people aren't actually showing the bias you think they are.

Or how about we just go with the old saying that there are two sides to every story. Might you not then hold your own judgment of Tesla's action in check until you got their side? That would seem reasonable, particularly when you readily admit to believing there's very limited information here.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a point I miss in the discussion. Regardless of who is wrong and who is right in this discussion between company and client, we know Tesla has issues. Communication is sloppy at times, they are short on certain parts at times etc.

You did miss that point because it's already been measured a few times in this thread.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

It's not a frequent occurrence and if you can't come to that reasonably and with common sense, I'm telling you straight up that it's not a frequent occurrence. Given the microscope Tesla is under and the lengths that some people go - like digging around in apps to discover unannounced options, or starting threads to dissect poor quality video photos to determine if a vehicle will have a toaster oven - if this was a frequent occurrence we'd know about it here, like yesterday.

I hear what you are saying, yet I'm not convinced we would know about all or even most such instances. But I'm willing to assume this is a rare occurrence, yes.

And I didn't say you said that you liked what the guy is doing. :wink: You did not 'merely note'. I find this an oft repeated example of you parsing information in an entirely out-in-left-field manner then reassembling it in a way that shares no semblance of the original.

That is your interpretation - and of course you are entitled to it. It is not my intention, though.

That's one way of looking at it, but what an oddly simplistic view coming from the guy who typically analyzes everything so (sometimes painfully) exquisitely. Let me suggest to you that this guy 'has a history', that he reveals himself quite obviously in his written word, and that people aren't actually showing the bias you think they are.

It was simplistic because I don't feel comfortable trying to assess the unique motivations of individuals taking part, as much as I feel comfortable trying to dissect a Model X mule. The caricature I provided was excessive, yet fair to both ends of a spectrum.

Or how about we just go with the old saying that there are two sides to every story. Might you not then hold your own judgment of Tesla's action in check until you got their side? That would seem reasonable, particularly when you readily admit to believing there's very limited information here.

I am holding my judgment. I am one of the few people on this thread who have not passed any judgment. My concern has been what this event might do in the lobbying sector, but that is completely irrespective of how reasonable or not Tesla's decision might be - it is related to the idea what the dealership lobby might do with instances of sole seller / sole arbiter blacklisting precedent. Do you think those guys would care if it is warranted or not? No, they'd use it to the max regardless, if they were to use it. I hope they won't.

A lot of people have said some very nasty things about the OP in this thread. Are you suggesting they really have the knowledge of the incident - indeed from both sides - to do so objectively? I sure don't.

- - - Updated - - -

He demanded $30k in damages if Tesla didn't install his Next generation seats by a point in time he deemed appropriate.

This has nothing to do with being offensive or even reasonable/unreasonable. For Tesla to keep doing business with this person by selling him yet another car is too much of a risk so, since it was in Tesla's right to do so, the declined him further business by canceling his reservation and giving him a full refund. Nothing personal. Just plain business.

I don't feel sorry for him.

Tesla could have cancelled the Model S order, refunded it and let the Model X reservation be, though. Tesla did fail to deliver the product ordered, suggesting a resolution with a penalty does not automatically mean the OP was unreasonable.

What is the rest of the story, as you seem to know?

 

[Johan]

Nothing more. End of story.

And since the OP seems to have walked away we could probably close the thread now as well. No use beating a dead horse.

 

[montauto]

Email to Jerome

Attached is my email to Jerome explaining my situation. I understand everybody has a different angle and approach, but read it and decide for yourself whether I was too harsh or not. I reached out to Jerome after lots of dealings with many other people before that.

If you read the email carefully you will find out that the Tesla legal council has actually falsely accusing me, that I rushed Tesla to build the car and that's why I didn't get the Next Gen Seats.

Also, for the record, I didn't request $30k in liquidated damages if I don't get the Next Gen seats. The demand was that if Tesla is going to build another Model S P85D for me they should agree that if the car they're going to built, somehow doesn't match the specifications on the order they will agree to pay $30k. That was just a small assurance for me that Tesla will pay attention and built a Model S P85D exactly as ordered.
Apparently Tesla was not sure that they can actually build a car as ordered from their website therefore we couldn't reach an agreement. I simply wanted assurance from Tesla that they will build what I order and that is all ...

My Model X cancellation was a totally different transaction and everything was just fine there. There was no need to cancel. As someone suggested here Tesla is more or less afraid that they still manage to build cars not as ordered (for whatever reason) and since this possibility exists, they eliminate the customers who will possibly complain about this, which I think is a normal behavior for most of the people.

 

[Canuck]

I am holding my judgment. I am one of the few people on this thread who have not passed any judgment... Are you suggesting they really have the knowledge of the incident - indeed from both sides - to do so objectively? I sure don't.

This is a forum. We're not granting Court orders. It would sure be boring if none of us made any judgments based on the facts as presented. The facts presented are enough for me to pass judgment since my judgment is only worth what everyone here paid for it. I read the post from the OP trying to rally a class action suit here. I read his complaints, his demands and I read the letter from Tesla to him before it was removed.

Sorry, but I can't call witnesses under oath, exclude hearsay evidence, and allow for cross-examination. That's what really needed to properly pass judgment but, once again, this is a forum and it would sure be a boring place if none of us told our opinions based on the limited facts we are presented with.

Oh, and Tesla does NOT come across looking good in this case. They screwed up -- there's no doubt about that. But many defendants escape liability with dirty hands.

 

[AnxietyRanger]

Attached is my email to Jerome explaining my situation. I understand everybody has a different angle and approach, but read it and decide for yourself whether I was too harsh or not. I reached out to Jerome after lots of dealings with many other people before that.

If you read the email carefully you will find out that the Tesla legal council has actually falsely accusing me, that I rushed Tesla to build the car and that's why I didn't get the Next Gen Seats.

Also, for the record, I didn't request $30k in liquidated damages if I don't get the Next Gen seats. The demand was that if Tesla is going to build another Model S P85D for me they should agree that if the car they're going to built, somehow doesn't match the specifications on the order they will agree to pay $30k. That was just a small assurance for me that Tesla will pay attention and built a Model S P85D exactly as ordered.
Apparently Tesla was not sure that they can actually build a car as ordered from their website therefore we couldn't reach an agreement. I simply wanted assurance from Tesla that they will build what I order and that is all ...

My Model X cancellation was a totally different transaction and everything was just fine there. There was no need to cancel. As someone suggested here Tesla is more or less afraid that they still manage to build cars not as ordered (for whatever reason) and since this possibility exists, they eliminate the customers who will possibly complain about this, which I think is a normal behavior for most of the people.

If this is true, OP tried to refuse delivery and Tesla refused initially to accept that?

 

[montauto]

I read his complaints, his demands and I read the letter from Tesla to him before it was removed.

I didn't remove the letter ... Are you saying it's no longer available here in this thread?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

This is a forum. We're not granting Court orders. It would sure be boring if none of us made any judgments based on the facts as presented. The facts presented are enough for me to pass judgment since my judgment is only worth what everyone here paid for it. I read the post from the OP trying to rally a class action suit here. I read his complaints, his demands and I read the letter from Tesla to him before it was removed.

Sorry, but I can't call witnesses under oath, exclude hearsay evidence, and allow for cross-examination. That's what really needed to properly pass judgment but, once again, this is a forum and it would sure be a boring place if none of us told our opinions based on the limited facts we are presented with.

Oh, and Tesla does NOT come across looking good in this case. They screwed up -- there's no doubt about that. But many defendants escape liability with dirty hands.

If the PDF above to Jerome is accurate, I have a hard time blaming the OP as much as some have. Read it, if you haven't already.

A lot of peope in this thread said why didn't he just refuse the delivery. If the account is accurate, OP did exactly that - and Tesla refused to comply initially. There is also the rather unfortunate backstory of the P85+ and Tesla salesperson pitching things...

I mean, I don't know if all that is accurate, but it sure as heck spring to mind the saying there are two sides to every story - except this time it is in relation to OP and how this thread has treated him.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't remove the letter ... Are you saying it's no longer available here in this thread?

For some reason the attachment seems to have been removed. By administration?

 

[montauto]

If this is true, OP tried to refuse delivery and Tesla refused to accept that?

At the end the transaction was reversed. I never took physical delivery of the P85D, however on paper I did, since the DS pushed me to sign the delivery papers without the physical presence of the car at the SC and probably at that time the car was still in Fremont CA and then the Tesla council falsely accused me that I rushed them to built the car, which is simply not true.

Whether you folks agree or not I have experienced the "dirty games" Tesla plays ...

Everyone knows that CIA or FBI are playing dirty games, but no one will ever admit that publicly ...

How do you deal with that?

Civilized folks go to Court

Back in the wild wild west, the justice was your gun ... you don't like the guy, go shoot him.

Well I don't shoot people and I consider myself a civilized person with rights and there is nothing wrong with that.

And I get it ... very particular customer, painful , let's get rid of him ... well if I wasn't so deeply involved with the whole Tesla thing I'd let it go and move on, but I invested to buy all the electric equipment ( Wall connector ) I had an electrician bore the walls in my entire house to bring me 100 Amps to my garage and spent thousands of dollars to achieve that and bring the 100 Amps to the garage, so I consider this as "marriage" ... If we're going to divorce with Tesla, the only way you get a divorce is in Court, isn't it?

 

[AnxietyRanger]

At the end the transaction was reversed. I never took physical delivery of the P85D, however on paper I did

Duly noted.

 

[montauto]

For some reason the attachment seems to have been removed. By administration?

I can still see it in my original post ...

 

[AnxietyRanger]

I can still see it in my original post ...

I tried it through message #61, maybe that is the issue?

Tesla Model X Cancellation - Page 7

- - - Updated - - -

I tried it through message #61, maybe that is the issue?

Tesla Model X Cancellation - Page 7

No, missing in the original as well:

"Invalid Attachment specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator."

I guess someone removed it.

 

[Canuck]

The letter doesn't make sense to me. He claims that Tesla forced him to sign the papers without seeing the car solely for the tax credits in 2015, but he told Tesla he didn't need the tax credit in 2015. He says he could have waited until 2016 -- but Tesla "rushed" and "insisted" he sign before year end. So he signed. He could have refused. I also note later he says he is making payments on the car -- making payments but doesn't need the credits for another year....hmmm. Then he refuses delivery after he signed, the paperwork was done, all by his own free will, and AFTER being told he will get the next generation seats. That seems unreasonable to me and add that to his reference in the letter to this forum where he tried to rally a class action lawsuit. This letter hurts his position more than it helps him, in my opinion.

Again, I am not defending Tesla actions here. They screwed up. But that doesn't mean they have to keep doing business with the OP. Best to each go their separate ways, as Tesla said in reply.