(BTW, the OP's attorney should probably make him aware that to claim the EV tax credit in 2014 he would have had to put the car in service in 2014. Signing the papers but not accepting delivery until 2015 may well be considered fraudulent in the eyes of the IRS)
For completeness the OP claims the 2014 signing was initiated on Tesla's request and he assumed so that they (or someone there?) could meet a 2014 quota. If the information here is correct, Tesla's position is the opposite: that the OP initiated it for tax reasons. If so, someone is in the wrong, but how can we know who. All I know is the story does change a lot depending on for who and why this early signing was done, because I also imagine it made it harder to refuse delivery later when the car was checked and found missing an item. I believe TMC has similar critique from other members where Tesla has been hastening some deliveries to meet quartal quotas?
It isn't hard for me to imagine this being a misunderstanding either, where both sides feel it was the other side's request, if it happened through some idle chatter between the OP and DS deciding to do the papers early, with both feeling personal pros for it (DS a quota, OP a tax break), but neither
really needing to do it. I can see how the story might look different to OP and DS if both feel this step was because of the other party. Also, this wouldn't be the first time corporate higher-ups wouldn't have the full picture of customer interaction, so there is that layer of potential broken communications as well.
I second this. To get there, both parties must be willing and back off a bit.
OP has more to loose, being banned as a Tesla customer must be shattering. Perhaps OP learned a lesson not to be too righteous, considering the outcome.
Some mediation is called for. The party that made the first threat is the one that has to make a first step towards different outcome, if that is what they wish.
Good luck.
I agree, although I think a reconciliation could always be initiated by either party. I remember one great quote from a senior citizen, of a happy couple, with many, many decades of marriage behind them being asked what is the secret. It was along the lines of: "Oh, we too fell out of love many times, but never both at the same time." If that isn't true of any human interaction/relationship, I don't know what is. As a westener, I believe we have religions based on this notion...
If the OP would call Jerome and say "Look, I was an a**, could we patch up? Model S didn't work for either us for a number of reasons, but I think Model X would. I promise to give it a fair shake."
In this case Tesla too escalated (with the unrelated Model X cancellation). In reverese, if Jerome called the guy, perhaps using the reservation as kind but well-intentioned leverage starting with something like "Look, I doubt either of want this issue, is there some way we could shake up hands, forget about the Model S for now and get back with the program with the Model X in better terms"? If Tesla would need some paper signed, fair enough. If the OP then goes on to be unreasonable, so let it go.
I could still see a chance of things working out if either or both took the opportunity.
In any case, no glee from me for this thread. I see a lot of people jumping from joy, with several posters expressing they are happy Tesla did this. I would much rather see a resolution for all, our peers and the company alike. I think it would be in the interest of TM and the friendliness of the TMC community as well.
---
Finally, I feel the urge to underline that I, like many others, agree the OP was combative and expressed his anger over the events with lawsuit threats included. I get no joy from that, nor is that what I would have done. His combative approach definitely made things worse for him. I think this is important to note, just so nobody thinks we were overlooking that. But then I see no joy in the absolute pummeling the OP is getting here either. I don't see how treating a persona like that could be good for us or the community.
It is like Apple fan sites where someone criticizes Apple beyond cosmetic complaints, it is brutal. It is a usual argument on sites like that that just because small criticism is allowed by said community, that it is proof large would too, but that doesn't really follow in reality. People who identify very strongly with the company/product, don't often take well if they feel the party the identify with being attacked (even when the "attack" would be justified) - and the level of criticism where that happens doesn't have to be very high either.
I guess it is a bit like family. A husband may find fault in his wife and nag, but if their neighbour were to say something bad about the wife (no matter if it is deserved, like if said wife would crash the neighbours car and walk away in secret), the husband often wouldn't take that kindly at all. Same with children, often parents may discipline them, but don't take well if others do, even if it were fair. Except in the case of actual family, this would probably be somewhat more understandable than it is with companies, but the very same thing happens around companies as well - people protect what they see as their own and it isn't necessarily about who is ríght.
Let's not turn into that.
I guess one could argue Tesla truly is the iPhone of cars, as I (and many others) have put it at times, in every way possible.
To Tesla's credit, they have created a remarkable product that creates strong emotion. No denying that. A real achievement.
We're all guilty of this in some avenue of our life, I'm sure. I sure as heck won't be throwing any stones.
