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

[Canuck]

That's nonsense. If the law could be applied that simple, no store could batteries in general. Or how about knifes or hammers, or chain saws. A simple liability waiver would make the deal safe for Tesla if that would be one of their worries. Liability isn't the issue why Tesla doesn't want to sell batteries separate. They want to sell cars, not battery packs. Makes sense.

Thanks for telling me how the law is applied. I've been practicing insurance defence law for over 20 years so I needed the lesson from someone who tells me a "simple liability waiver would make the deal safe for Tesla". As I said in my prior post:

"A Release would also mean very little, if you were willing to sign one, since it would only apply to the person signing it, and not everyone potentially exposed to harm that can be done from that battery. Tesla would be the first party named in the lawsuit, as the deep pocket, and no reasonable car maker would allow these batteries to be used for any other purpose than in a Model S. The test for negligence is whether the harm is reasonably foreseeable."

I've sued many big corporations over product liability issues on behalf of insurers. But thanks again for telling me my opinion is "nonsense".

Did you also read this post:

Insurance attorney here. 100% agree.

Then again, what would he know?

 

[mknox]

That's nonsense. If the law could be applied that simple, no store could batteries in general. Or how about knifes or hammers, or chain saws. A simple liability waiver would make the deal safe for Tesla if that would be one of their worries. Liability isn't the issue why Tesla doesn't want to sell batteries separate. They want to sell cars, not battery packs. Makes sense.

I agree. GM or Ford will sell you a "crate" engine, and you could, in theory, kill yourself by putting it into a go-cart or a boat that is too small for the power etc.

 

[stopcrazypp]

That's nonsense. If the law could be applied that simple, no store could batteries in general. Or how about knifes or hammers, or chain saws. A simple liability waiver would make the deal safe for Tesla if that would be one of their worries. Liability isn't the issue why Tesla doesn't want to sell batteries separate. They want to sell cars, not battery packs. Makes sense.

I agree. GM or Ford will sell you a "crate" engine, and you could, in theory, kill yourself by putting it into a go-cart or a boat that is too small for the power etc.

Not a lawyer, but in consumer laws the use for purpose seems fairly important. In this case, Tesla would be providing you with a pack that they know would be used in a way it was not designed for. In your examples of batteries, knives, hammers, chainsaws, crate engines, the manufacturer and retailer is always selling the item in the way it was intended to be used.

 

[mknox]

Not a lawyer, but in consumer laws the use for purpose seems fairly important. In this case, Tesla would be providing you with a pack that they know would be used in a way it was not designed for.

But what about a regular old 12v car battery. You could get into a lot of trouble with those if hooked up or managed improperly (the gasses they generate can be very explosive. Not to mention back in the old homebrew EV days, people would gang a number of lead acid batteries up in to packs to power cars.

 

[Canuck]

But what about a regular old 12v car battery. You could get into a lot of trouble with those if hooked up or managed improperly (the gasses they generate can be very explosive. Not to mention back in the old homebrew EV days, people would gang a number of lead acid batteries up in to packs to power cars.

Really, you can't see the difference in buying a 12 volt battery that has many different uses and purposes, as opposed to a Tesla Model S battery pack?

Also, your engine issue needs the test at law applied to it too. The test is reasonable foreseeability of harm. REASONABLE. Engine = not reasonable. High power battery pack = reasonable.

 

[Darren Donovan]

Not to go off topic, but China isn't communist or even socialist. That disappeared long ago. It's a capitalist oligarchy ruled by a small number of wealthy elites. Sound familiar?

Not at all familiar. Try staging a public protest against that "elite group" in China, you'll be thrown in jail immediately. Here in the USA, you won't. There are reasons why we have Chinese wanting to get to the USA, Canada, and other developed democratic countries, but the reverse is non existent. Now let's get back on topic.

 

[Canuck]

In your examples of batteries, knives, hammers, chainsaws, crate engines, the manufacturer and retailer is always selling the item in the way it was intended to be used.

And even then there are lawsuits. People also think it's whether the lawsuit will be successful or not that is the test when in reality the vast majority of cases settle out of court because litigation costs are so high on both sides. So really, Tesla is thinking defence costs to defend a potential action more than whether or not there will be a judgement. Plus, they could have insurance issues if they sold the battery for other purposes. Most insurance defines the "risk" which could be set out for Tesla as "automobile manufacturer, service and sales". Selling battery packs for use other than automotive could result in a denial of coverage since the insurance was not provided for that purpose.

Again, all just my personal opinion.

 

[stopcrazypp]

But what about a regular old 12v car battery. You could get into a lot of trouble with those if hooked up or managed improperly (the gasses they generate can be very explosive. Not to mention back in the old homebrew EV days, people would gang a number of lead acid batteries up in to packs to power cars.

You didn't seem to get my point. The 12V battery manufacturer and retailer can reasonably say that when they sold it to you, they had no idea that you were going to use it in a way that it was not designed for. In this case, Tesla knows you are going to use the pack for something it was not designed for.

 

[DieAbetic]

And even then there are lawsuits. People also think it's whether the lawsuit will be successful or not that is the test when in reality the vast majority of cases settle out of court because litigation costs are so high on both sides. So really, Tesla is thinking defence costs to defend a potential action more than whether or not there will be a judgement. Plus, they could have insurance issues if they sold the battery for other purposes. Most insurance defines the "risk" which could be set out for Tesla as "automobile manufacturer, service and sales". Selling battery packs for use other than automotive could result in a denial of coverage since the insurance was not provided for that purpose.

Again, all just my personal opinion.

+1. We charge at $200-$350 per hour (depending on the client and lawsuit involved), and the cost is probably bare minimum $5,000-$10,000 (that's early settlement, it'll probably cost $2K-$3K just to look at the full docs/pleadings and provide analysis). If dragged out with discovery and litigation for 1+ year you are looking at $20,000-$25,000+, and that's only litigation costs. We settle 90%+ of cases outside of trial. If a lawsuit is filed insurance will absolutely raise rates, if more than 1 filed the rates go up exponentially.

 

[AWDtsla]

Imagine if a bakery wouldn't sell you cake because you might use it in a gay wedding.

Unless Tesla has a legally discriminatory reason for not doing business with you (i.e. you have sued them), these arguments are stupid.

 

[Max*]

Imagine if a bakery wouldn't sell you cake because you might use it in a gay wedding.

I see we read the same newspapers.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Imagine if a bakery wouldn't sell you cake because you might use it in a gay wedding.

Unless Tesla has a legally discriminatory reason for not doing business with you (i.e. you have sued them), these arguments are stupid.

This has nothing to do with discrimination but rather negligence.

A better analogy is for example here where a gun shop was successfully sued for neligence for selling a gun that was later used to shoot two officers.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/milwaukee-badger-guns-negligence-lawsuit/

 

[AWDtsla]

This has nothing to do with discrimination but rather negligence.

A better analogy is for example here where a gun shop was successfully sued for neligence for selling a gun that was later used to shoot two officers.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/milwaukee-badger-guns-negligence-lawsuit/

That has nothing to do with this. Straw purchases of firearms are illegal. It seems they proved the shop owners knew about it in this case.

Regardless, does Tesla require showing your electrical engineering degree before buying the battery? How about before unbolting it from your own car?

 

[wk057]

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".

You must have missed the details.

Tesla has the 90 kWh pack part in stock. It is listed at $25,000. I want to buy that part and pay them to install it in my car. End of transaction. The part I'm buying from Tesla *is* being used in my Model S, and they know this because they would be installing it.

Now, my Model S already has an 85 pack part installed. This is my part, my property, and I want to retain ownership of it. Because of this, Tesla won't complete the above transaction.

Edit:

In good faith, I did send over a note offering to sign a waiver of liability and/or a waiver of warranty on the 85 pack.

 

[Johan]

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

You must have missed the details.

Tesla has the 90 kWh pack part in stock. It is listed at $25,000. I want to buy that part and pay them to install it in my car. End of transaction. The part I'm buying from Tesla *is* being used in my Model S, and they know this because they would be installing it.

Now, my Model S already has an 85 pack part installed. This is my part, my property, and I want to retain ownership of it. Because of this, Tesla won't complete the above transaction.

Edit:

In good faith, I did send over a note offering to sign a waiver of liability and/or a waiver of warranty on the 85 pack.

This is a an accurate summary. And while they never said it directly we're all assuming this is because they don't want to be part of a transaction that ends with you having two batteries and one car (the 90kWh in the car and the old 85kWh in your garage, on a trailer etc). Now I would assume this is because they believe the high voltage battery pack is a potentially dangerous component in any situation where it's not mounted in a factory built Model S, physically bolted under the car and hooked up to the BMS, cooling and the other integral components. I can sympathize with this assessment on Tesla's part.

 

[luvnMyTS]

Imagine if a bakery wouldn't sell you cake because you might use it in a gay wedding.

Unless Tesla has a legally discriminatory reason for not doing business with you (i.e. you have sued them), these arguments are stupid.

Sadly this has happened and there have been lawsuits over it!

 

[mknox]

Really, you can't see the difference in buying a 12 volt battery that has many different uses and purposes, as opposed to a Tesla Model S battery pack?

Also, your engine issue needs the test at law applied to it too. The test is reasonable foreseeability of harm. REASONABLE. Engine = not reasonable. High power battery pack = reasonable.

I still am not seeing this pass the reasonable / not reasonable test. A 12 volt car battery has one primary intended purpose. The "many different uses and purposes" have only come about because you can purchase them unfettered. If Tesla packs were available unfettered, I would expect "many different uses and purposes" could evolve for it too.

In many jurisdictions you can purchase a handgun. I think we can all agree on the intended purpose and foreseeability of harm there. If there is this huge concern over foreseeability of harm from buying a battery, simply require a waiver.

But I don't think this is what's going on here. Tesla doesn't seem to want to sell battery packs... which is their right, I suppose.

 

[Max*]

I think we can all agree on the intended purpose

Decorating?

Also I brought up the handgun thing pages ago, keep up!

 

[stopcrazypp]

That has nothing to do with this. Straw purchases of firearms are illegal. It seems they proved the shop owners knew about it in this case.

Regardless, does Tesla require showing your electrical engineering degree before buying the battery? How about before unbolting it from your own car?

My point was focused on the negligence. Of course, if you want, here's example that does not have a specific law against it, negligence for selling gasoline to a drunk driver (no law prohibits selling gasoline to a drunk driver):
http://www.johndaylegal.com/25-8-sale-of-gasoline-to-intoxicated-motorist.html

 

[wk057]

My point was focused on the negligence. Of course, if you want, here's example that does not have a specific law against it, negligence for selling gasoline to a drunk driver (no law prohibits selling gasoline to a drunk driver):
http://www.johndaylegal.com/25-8-sale-of-gasoline-to-intoxicated-motorist.html

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.