The goods only need to be of quality that an ordinary person would reasonably expect them to be/perform. No need for any expert witness/scientific statement etc.
A āordinary personā does rule out most YouTubers, thereās nothing ordinary, normal or reasonable about them or their views
, but 8 take your point, let me explain my thinking.
I agree it appears to be rubbish at times, Iāve personally not used it, but the easiest challenge was the absence of the feature, now it exists Iād have thought you need to substantiate the claim over itās performance and not just express an opinion.
Iām playing devils advocate here but letās take the points
a)any description of the goods,
- parking sensor, the absence was a slam dunk, the performance is under the later bullets
(b)the price or other consideration for the goods (if relevant), and
- thereās no broken out price other than EAP and FSD. Those features have a much easier case to prove, especially FSD.
- if you take the overall vehicle price you then look at comparable priced cars. They all say donāt rely on it, the expectation is argued that itās not foolproof. The counter argument is the expectation is unreasonable. An expert would be able to quantify expectations better and go through the detail
- they expressly reserve the right to alter the product within the material definition of the car, and open up a whole new argument over the extent of whatās permissible
(c)all the other relevant circumstances (see subsection
(5)).
(3)The quality of goods includes their state and condition; and the following aspects (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goodsā
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are usually supplied;
- so this is the one on performance. Not withstanding the disclaimers, the defence would provide examples where it works. Theyāre also likely to be able to provide examples where it works better than USS (curbs) so their argument would be itās just different.
- again an expert would be able to contextually layout the disclaimers, use case scenarios, relative performance etc. To claim you need to show more than it sometimes doesnāt work, but that itās materially worse.
So the rebuttal, thatās assuming they turn up, would be along the lines of:
- the feature exists
- it has no standalone value in the context of the car, itās not an option (different arguments for EAP)
- in some situations itās better than USS (theyāll ignore where itās worse)
- no performing guarantees were provided, and they reserve the right to make changes
- all such system by all manufacturers advise not to rely on it, itās therefore not reasonable to assume it wonāt make mistakes
- the expectations are therefore unreasonable
As I say, Iām not accepting the arguments mitigate what appears to be happening, only that the training in my work life says you need to look at the opposition arguments as much as your own and address each of those.
insideevs.com
teslamotorsclub.com
www.legislation.gov.uk
