Tesla won't sell me a 90 kWh pack unless I give them my old pack for 12% market value

[FlasherZ]

Hmm... right to repair. Wonder if I could order a pack in Massachusetts?

The plain-language definitions in the Massachusetts law exclude Tesla: My P85 Salvage Story - Help! - Page 2

The Massachusetts law uses two specific definitions in the law itself: "dealer" and "franchise agreement", both of which do not apply to Tesla.

If you decided to push that route, you'd have a hard time getting there. Perhaps you'd get the "spirit of the law" angle, but you'd be tied up in appeals for much longer than your car will be around.

- - - Updated - - -

The issues can't be separated because they are the same issue. They're refusing to sell him a part. In this case the part is the battery pack.
If I buy any part from any other manufacturer, they never insist on getting the old one back to do the deal. Sometimes they'll put a core charge on something to incent me to return the old one, but that's merely them offering to buy the old one, not a condition of the sale.

You're beating a dead horse. We get it, really we do. You're angry they called it a "core charge" which has a long standing meaning in the auto parts industry and suggest they will have to conform to the meaning of "core charge" as used in the auto parts industry.

Apple is not required to sell you logic boards for your laptop, but they choose to do it. Samsung is not required to sell you power supply boards for your TV, but they choose to do so. Likewise, in most jurisdictions, Tesla is not required to sell you one of their battery packs.

Tesla is legally required to repair your vehicle pursuant to the warranty, but that's not applicable in this case.

Is it a stupid policy? Yes, but Tesla has a lot of those - as do so many other organizations. But it's Tesla's right not to sell him a battery pack without demanding the other in return. (...and I don't believe "there oughta be a law!")

 

[stopcrazypp]

Now that's just stupid. What if it was automated pay at pump? If it's not, does the teenage gas station attendant need to breathalyze customers? lol. That's got to be the dumbest thing I've read about in quite some time.

Anyway, I've offered to waive any and all of Tesla's liability with regard to the 85 pack if they install the 90 for me, so we'll see how that goes.

Yes, it's kind of dumb, but that doesn't really change the fact that is how negligence lawsuits work. The barrier to a successful lawsuit is far lower than people think it is and I tend to trust the opinion of the two lawyers who spoke up about it here already.

Anyways, it's worth trying to see if Tesla bites on signing off liability. I'm not sure, however, if the publicity here helped or not though.

 

[GregRF]

I don't own any other brand of car currently except the donor car for my EV conversion project.

While discussions on battery transactions and right to repair laws is interesting, ^this part seems far more intriguing. Is there a thread somewhere I'm missing or any more details on your plans?

 

[green1]

The plain-language definitions in the Massachusetts law exclude Tesla: My P85 Salvage Story - Help! - Page 2

The Massachusetts law uses two specific definitions in the law itself: "dealer" and "franchise agreement", both of which do not apply to Tesla.

Tesla's lawyers, who undoubted know a LOT more about this than you do, very obviously disagree. I'm sorry, you're flat out wrong on this one, as has been stated in many previous threads.

 

[FlasherZ]

Tesla's lawyers, who undoubted know a LOT more about this than you do, very obviously disagree. I'm sorry, you're flat out wrong on this one, as has been stated in many previous threads.

If you could point me to their statement saying that they disagree, I'd appreciate it. I haven't seen any yet, despite your statement "in many previous threads" that they have. So thanks for your support in educating me.

I do concede that they have made some service instructions available to those in Massachusetts, but that's significantly different than disagreeing with the position on the law in question. When Tesla issues a statement conceding, or a court judges them, then that's the correct determination, not extrapolated conjecture based on activity.

 

[green1]

If you could point me to their statement saying that they disagree, I'd appreciate it. I haven't seen any yet, despite your statement that they have. So thanks for your support in educating me.

They are complying with MA law while not doing the same thing anywhere else.

Your version says that they just like people in MA and hate everyone else, that seems highly unlikely.

 

[FlasherZ]

They are complying with MA law while not doing the same thing anywhere else.

You're the only one that seems to be stating I'm "flat-out wrong". And I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong when sufficient evidence is offered that Tesla has, indeed, explicitly decided the law applies to them. However, by attributing their actions to only one of many possible causes, you're committing a logic error. Correlation does not imply causation.

It could be a defensive step taken to *prevent* future laws that could jeopardize their business, without it being a concession that the existing law applies to them. Their activities in Massachusetts may simply be a partial willingness to prevent Massachusetts from enacting an even tougher law that would require them to give up their engineering trade secrets, especially given a tenuous relationship after the court case in which Massachusetts lost.

More background on the court case... A part of the judgment in favor of Tesla in Massachusetts, where the dealer's association contended that Tesla was operating illegally, under laws that referred to the same definitions:

First, although the parties do not address this point, it is not entirely clear that the plain language of § 4 (c) (10) applies to the defendants’ conduct and renders it unlawful, as the plaintiffs contend. They maintain that § 4 (c) (10) prohibits a manufacturer such as Tesla, directly or through a subsidiary such as Tesla MA, from owning or operating in the Commonwealth “a motor vehicle dealership” selling its own line make of automobiles. “Motor vehicle dealership” is a term defined in c. 93B as:

“any person who, in the ordinary course of its business, is engaged in the business of selling new motor vehicles to consumers or other end users pursuant to a franchise agreement and who has obtained a class 1 license pursuant to the provisions of [G. L. c. 140, §§ 58 & 59]” (emphasis added).G. L. c. 93B, § 1, inserted by St. 2002, c. 222, § 3. Because neither Tesla nor Tesla MA is engaged in the business of selling new Tesla motor vehicles in Massachusetts “pursuant to a franchise agreement,” there appears to be a question whether Tesla’s business model involves the operation of a “motor vehicle dealership” within the meaning of c. 93B, § 4 (c) (10), and therefore whether, by its literal terms, the proscription of § 4 (c) (10) applies to the defendants at all.

...so even the Massachusetts courts have concluded that there is sufficient doubt as to whether such language applies to Tesla.

An article that talks more about it:
Tesla Doesnt Want You to Work on Its Cars

Has anyone in Massachusetts demanded to buy a part that Tesla restricts elsewhere? That would be a reasonable test that would provide more evidence as to their intent. I haven't seen any, and I would think we would have. Perhaps Tesla will make it a moot point by opening up parts sales to anyone, then everyone can be happy. In the meantime, I will agree with wk057: Tesla isn't required to sell parts to anyone if it doesn't want to, and that kinda sucks.

 

[brianman]

If Tesla sells you a pack knowing it is not being used in a Model S then it is "reasonably foreseeable that there is a risk of harm". That's the test for negligence.

That description doesn't apply here. The original plan was to buy a 90 kWh pack and repurpose an already sold pack. Not the same thing. Not far from the tree, but not the same thing.

- - - Updated - - -

You're beating a dead horse. We get it, really we do. You're angry they called it a "core charge" which has a long standing meaning in the auto parts industry and suggest they will have to conform to the meaning of "core charge" as used in the auto parts industry.

Perhaps we should get Bill Clinton to write the "Tesla terminology" wiki page.

 

[FlasherZ]

Perhaps we should get Bill Clinton to write the "Tesla terminology" wiki page.

That depends on what your definition of "terminology" is.

 

[brianman]

That depends on what your definition of "terminology" is.

Well played.

 

[Bangor Bob]

As it happens, everything I've read indicates GM won't sell Volt or Spark packs without getting one back either, and will only sell one if their engineers determine a swap is required.

No idea if it's any different in MA.

 

[Canuck]

That description doesn't apply here. The original plan was to buy a 90 kWh pack and repurpose an already sold pack. Not the same thing. Not far from the tree, but not the same thing.

That's simply semantics when it comes to the test for negligence. Judges do this when you make those types of arguments (without the smile):

 

[wk057]

While discussions on battery transactions and right to repair laws is interesting, ^this part seems far more intriguing. Is there a thread somewhere I'm missing or any more details on your plans?

No thread yet. I don't plan on publicizing much, if anything, until I reach some epic milestone Maybe after I get the P85 drive unit fitted..........

 

[brantse]

No thread yet. I don't plan on publicizing much, if anything, until I reach some epic milestone Maybe after I get the P85 drive unit fitted..........

Rather than using Panasonic cells, how about trying to source some of the Samsung high C rate cells for this project?

 

[wk057]

Rather than using Panasonic cells, how about trying to source some of the Samsung high C rate cells for this project?

I have some rather unusual plans for the battery for this vehicle. Not spoiling all the fun though just yet.

 

[Caligula]

I dont have any Apple products, so maybe someone can chime in. Can you, as an end consumer, directly purchase an iPhone battery from Apple?

 

[dsm363]

Perhaps we should get Bill Clinton to write the "Tesla terminology" wiki page.

Necessary to bring politics into this?

 

[Caligula]

Necessary to bring politics into this?

Did you not see the references to communism, gay marriage, and gun laws earlier? :tongue:

 

[FlasherZ]

Necessary to bring politics into this?

I don't see the politics here, other than the fact he held office. If any other celebrity asked us to redefine the word "is", we'd be invoking his/her name here instead.

 

[Caligula]

I don't see the politics here, other than the fact he held office. If any other celebrity asked us to redefine the word "is", we'd be invoking his/her name here instead.

That's depends on what you're definition of celebrity is.... is