I agree that there can possibly be fraud. But the OP said there is no written documentation between Tesla and the auction house, or between the auction house and the non-Tesla dealer, or between the non-Tesla dealer and the OP as to the features included on the car. The parole evidence rule generally precludes the entry of oral evidence that has not been reduced to writing. So if one sued you would likely get into a pissing contest of he said, you said, and likely spend way more in legal fees than the cost of the software.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla YANKED FSD option without notice - Class Action lawsuit? Any Lawyers here? [Resolved]
- Thread starter MS-Alec
- Start date
-
- Tags
- class action fsd fsdc
I agree that there can possibly be fraud. But the OP said there is no written documentation between Tesla and the auction house, or between the auction house and the non-Tesla dealer, or between the non-Tesla dealer and the OP as to the features included on the car. The parole evidence rule generally precludes the entry of oral evidence that has not been reduced to writing. So if one sued you would likely get into a pissing contest of he said, you said, and likely spend way more in legal fees than the cost of the software.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
So basically you’re arguing and making irrelevant distinctions because a new owner put a “C” in the title of their thread?
This is an irrelevant distraction. The context of the thread is quite obviously related to the removal of the software features. You are conflating hardware/software and stating things as fact that are simply not true and needlessly confusing the matter at hand.
I respectfully disagree.
It turns out the OP has no gripe with FSD. His gripe is that Tesla removed Summon and NoA. No one has full self driving today. But when his car was made in 08/2017, Summon and NoA was a part of EAP, which was included in his car. After he bought the car, the car was downgraded to regular AP, and he lost these two features which now requires the full self driving software.
So the question boils down to whether it was proper for Tesla to downgrade EAP to regular AP, taking away Summon and NoA from the OP As I indicated in other posts, I feel it hurts the brand nane what Tesla did, but their official public policy is that they do that. I don’t like it, but I believe their licenses indicate that at least some features like full self driving software exist only as long as the purchaser owns the car.
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Of course they do, that’s the topic of this thread. This is made up.
And FSD, which OP has been quite clear about. Again, this is made up.
Many people have paid for it, and many features are now exclusive to the package. This is made up.
I’m well aware. I own such a car and bought it new.
Yes, he “lost these two features” because Tesla removed both the $5k EAP feature AND the $3k FSD feature that were purchased with the car when new.
FSD software has never had such a “license”. This is made up.
My car (2015 P85D) has EAP. I bought it used in May.
If Tesla reached into my car today and changed it to regular AP because that is their current stated policy I feel pretty confident I would have a case against them.
I feel like I understand the points on both sides that are being made.
I keep coming back to the rims analogy. The Monroney may show the rims that were delivered when new, but don't guarantee that they stay with the car for life. If I wanted to change the rims on my car, I can do that anytime, and there is no guarantee to a future buyer that they are entitled to the original rims. But I can not go swap those rims 3 days after I sold the car. The buyer doesn't need written proof that I promised the rims - they were on the car when they bought it. I can't claim that it's my policy, stated or otherwise as justification to take those rims back. If I meant to keep the rims but failed to swap them before I gave away the keys, then that's on me.
If Tesla reached into my car today and changed it to regular AP because that is their current stated policy I feel pretty confident I would have a case against them.
I feel like I understand the points on both sides that are being made.
I keep coming back to the rims analogy. The Monroney may show the rims that were delivered when new, but don't guarantee that they stay with the car for life. If I wanted to change the rims on my car, I can do that anytime, and there is no guarantee to a future buyer that they are entitled to the original rims. But I can not go swap those rims 3 days after I sold the car. The buyer doesn't need written proof that I promised the rims - they were on the car when they bought it. I can't claim that it's my policy, stated or otherwise as justification to take those rims back. If I meant to keep the rims but failed to swap them before I gave away the keys, then that's on me.
It’s 1am, so I’ll end this discussion and turn in for the night by referring you to post 151 by the OP, where he says “My gripe is loosing EAP.”.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
This thread lends more credence to making FSD a user/individual purchased option portable in login form to any Tesla that supports the feature. Loaner? Rental? HW2+? FSD/EAP sub? Enabled on login.
This being said: I will not be buying FSD for the time being on our new Model Y. AP will have to do until these things are resolved.
This being said: I will not be buying FSD for the time being on our new Model Y. AP will have to do until these things are resolved.
PACEMD
Active Member
This is made up. It's 11 pm...........
israndy
Supercharger Hunter
I think as a group we have failed to help the OP or represent the Tesla community very well. It didn't help that the OP was not very clear leaving us to fill in details using our own prejudices. So yes, lots of comparing Apples to Oranges here
Somehow I missed a bunch of posts in this thread. I think they were coming so thick and fast!
Having seen the window sticker and Tesla's dated response about removing features after they had sold the car, all I can say is I don't know what more the OP could have done. Only with hindsight can one say that at the first sign of features changing before completing the transaction, the OP should have said 'not buying until car has exactly features I'm expecting', but even if that had happened, or if Tesla had been a little slower in removing features, the question would still stand 'can Tesla make good on corrections to specs especially using OTA after Tesla have sold the car.'? (obviously involving downgrade in spec).
My choice was to buy directly from Tesla purely to reduce the risks exposed here and make it a slightly clearer transaction were things to go wrong.
Have there been any similar situations when LFUSC started getting stripped by Tesla? Clearly there are cases where cars were sold / pex' d with lifetime free charging, that would have transfered to subsequent owners, but then the game rules got changed by Tesla for their benefit and to the loss of some dealers holding cars and affected owners.
And the question that clearly needs addressing is what Tesla's rights are if THEY sell a car with certain features active and with no way of a buyer being able to find out reliably if and how the stated spec could be incorrect and potentially change in future.
If you can't trust a car sold by Tesla to be sold correctly, then good luck to buying through any other source.
Legally, it sounds very tough to wind the OP's situation back, other than by a good will gesture from Tesla.
Last month I bought a food mixer. The one that arrived was a deluxe version of the one I paid for, and when I called the seller to check if they wanted to correct the mistake they just said 'sorry, our error. Keep the one we sent you.' OK, the OP didn't buy a food mixer, but neither would it sink Tesla if they did the right thing and made good.
Last edited:
This is not an FSD issue based on info on the sticker.
It is an understandable issue though, and will effect many EAP cars I believe. Since EAP feature set was effectively the same as FSD paid upgrade for a while, Tesla clearly had to differentiate between the two, or as eventually happened just effectively ditch EAP. Tesla presumably realised that they had given away too much with EAP and needed to shift features out of EAP to pad out FSD feature set.
Owners of EAP cars should watch this issue really carefully. This is where the FSD-like capability of their cars (and the price they paid for it) is being nerfed. It will be impossible to sell (at least through the motor trade) or pex an EAP car without the FSD-like features being stripped.
Coincidentally, EAP is likely to be on cars with ap hardware that won't support FSD going forwards, so the whole process is likely part of limiting older cars to what their hardware can deliver, (even though many owners are totally fine with EAP and it probably still matches current FSD quite closely).
I think the real issue here and may justify a thread title change is removal of EAP after Tesla sold car with it.
Also, was EAP sold as a temporary license or permanent feature of the car? Prior to this thread I would have thought that EAP was a permanent feature.
Last edited:
No evidence that the car ever had fsd. EAP, yes. FSD-like feature set, yes. Hardware that could deliver what at that time was regarded as needing FSDC hardware, yes.
But at no time has present FSD been removed from this car.
If this car had been upgraded to FSD, then arguably it would be one of the cars that Tesla may be obliged to upgrade to HW3 with ap 2.5 cameras and rewiring and whatever else it takes to deliver the FSD paid for.
Essential to get to the bottom of this.
5k for EAP already gave same features as FSD at that time.
3k does not imo at the moment relate to FSD. Why add FSD to a car that already has the same features? What does this 3k actually relate to on this car? Was FSDC a prerequisite for having EAP?
Still leaves issue that car left Tesla with EAP (that provided main FSD features), was sold as-is to 3rd party dealer at auction with EAP, then suddenly Tesla remove that feature set.
PACEMD
Active Member
Dead horse to death............It would have been unusual for Tesla to sell that car to an auction house/third party dealer with EAP/FSD included. It's my understanding that unlimited supercharging and EAP/FSD typically don't transfer through a third party sale. What Tesla sells, under those circumstances, is typically a basic software model. They are within their rights to do so and it makes good economic sense. There is no reason Tesla would include EAP/FSD when reselling a used car just because the vehicle once had such an option. The value of EAP/FSD on the used market is just too nebulous. The software on the vehicle, however, even when sold without EAP/FSD, could have continued to reflect the existing EAP/FSD of the prior owner until updated to a new owner or until reset. What Tesla likely should have done was to reset the software before the sale, to avoid confusion. Seems that transference of unlimited supercharging and EAP/FSD may be different when buying from a private seller.
In any case, always do your research when buying a used car. If no documentation exists of buying EAP/FSD there was no included EAP/FSD, only included assumptions. The issue here is mostly between the buyer and the third party seller. If there is documentation of buying EAP the seller owes the buyer, if the seller has documentation of buying EAP, Tesla owes them. I'm guessing there is only documentation of EAP existing prior to the sale to the original owner. In which case the current buyer bought only their own or someone else's assumptions. Perhaps an interesting legal question might be if there was a reasonable expectation of buying a vehicle with EAP based on the existing software at the time of a test drive. Tesla and/or the 3rd party seller should have been aware of that false expectation prior to the sale. Intentional or not it's deceptive to the buyer on the part of the third party seller, not likely Tesla from a legal perspective. But I ain't no lawyer, Jim........
In any case, always do your research when buying a used car. If no documentation exists of buying EAP/FSD there was no included EAP/FSD, only included assumptions. The issue here is mostly between the buyer and the third party seller. If there is documentation of buying EAP the seller owes the buyer, if the seller has documentation of buying EAP, Tesla owes them. I'm guessing there is only documentation of EAP existing prior to the sale to the original owner. In which case the current buyer bought only their own or someone else's assumptions. Perhaps an interesting legal question might be if there was a reasonable expectation of buying a vehicle with EAP based on the existing software at the time of a test drive. Tesla and/or the 3rd party seller should have been aware of that false expectation prior to the sale. Intentional or not it's deceptive to the buyer on the part of the third party seller, not likely Tesla from a legal perspective. But I ain't no lawyer, Jim........
Last edited:
Similar threads
