-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Update to the Supercharger network policies
- Thread starter Bluechip
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Tesla Inc.
Correct, and as I was trying to say, when you have lost to - or given into - the claims from the buyer, then you can go on Tesla and ask/sue them to cover your loss. The car had as you bought it, and as long as you owned it, a free unlimited use of the supercharger network. And you sold it to a buyer claiming that the car had that, and then Tesla changes the rules when they find that it's a new owner, and removes the "unlimited" part from the deal.
In this blog Tesla is introducing a limit on the free supercharging for new cars ordered after January 1, 2017. So, what to you call what was in effect until they introduced this limits on free access for the life of the car? I would call it "unlimited".
Exactly. As I see it, there is no reason to think that they will go that route. Yes, they will for new cars from now on, and it seems like it will also do it on CPO cars as they own them - and are free to do whatever they want.
OT but for me it's not enough cost savings and aesthetics. The new glass panels will be well received depending on cost.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
That would be a very contrived situation and one that it is not clear that Tesla is liable for. The seller is the one who made the misrepresentation to the buyer, not Tesla. Tesla will argue that point for sure in a suit.
I just want to make it clear because you are putting things in "quotes" while Tesla didn't use that kind of specific terminology. A lot of people keep saying Tesla promised "free unlimited supercharging for life" in quotes when Tesla made no such specific promise. The lack of the "unlimited" term can make a big difference.
I've pointed out the example previously, but it bears repeating: T-mobile has a "free data for life" plan, and it's limited to 200 MB per month.
Free Data for Life | T-Mobile Support
"free unlimited for life" and "free for life" does not mean the same thing.
I should also clarify my position, I am not supporting Tesla putting restrictions on private party sales, just saying that if Tesla does decide to do so, it's not clear they will have legal trouble doing so.
Last edited:
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Well, they didn't have a paid supercharger network before. Previously the network had no payment component, so that is just a side effect of that. That doesn't impose an extra restriction on how they can interpret the statement now that they do.
Wow, its a LOT more in Florida for that. a 10watt system is about 30k here. We use about 2500watts a month. Avg about 80kw a day. And thats before we add the Tesla. We heard on a 240 line its about 17 dollars for a full charge. We do plan on adding Solar at some point but in our county your not allowed Net 0
It's a lot more in California, too.
$4/watt installed is a pretty good deal. Bids I've received recently are in the $4.3-$4.5/watt range. $4/watt would make an 8kW system cost around $32k. $1/watt is not something I've heard anyone achieve even through self-installation. Maybe @Topher can help us out with what we're missing.
Ulmo
Active Member
The cars are bought with a certain resale value considered at the end of the ownership of the first user. Tesla changing the terms of the car (for resale value) against what it said it would do changes its value inappropriately.
Questions like this are why I said they ought to end free SuperCharging sooner rather than later for new commitments (new cars), but Tesla's legacy commitments still remain.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
Interesting to note that Tesla has now added a credit card link to the owners page ... 
Interesting to note that Tesla has now added a credit card link to the owners page ...
View attachment 208126
Let the idle charges roll!
Charging those to credit card at the time of the event would actually be an improvement. Hopefully the service center idea will be very short-lived or merely remain as a back-up idea for covering charges in case of inability to charge then at the time.
Tesla should also allow pre-purchasing X amount by some other means. Credit cards may not be the thing in all the markets. They could simply price the non-free Supercharging for new owners in dollars (or other currency as the case may be) and charge that.
That minute-by-minute charging of all Supercharger usage (charging or not) would be a very simple policy with a credit card (or alternatively pre-payment) in place, with a backup of service center charge if other methods have failed.
The seller in this imaginary case has correctly represented the current situation. He has bought the car with supercharger access and no imposed limit on how much it can charge on that network for free. So no misrepresentation from the seller. In this imaginary situation Tesla has changed the rules without telling the customer. If Tesla does tell the customer in advance, then the customer has a case before the car is sold.
But you did not answer my question on what you will call this charging plan without any limit if not unlimited. You may be correct in that Tesla officially has not used the word "unlimited" (But I do think I have heard Elon use that word in this context, but I'm to lazy to trying to find any reference to this), they have not stated any limit on the charging plan. They have talked about some limits on how it is intended used (free long distance travel - not local charging), but not on how much you may use it on your long distance travels.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Again, Tesla never promised free unlimited supercharger access would transfer to subsequent owners even when their network started charging money for access. Keep in mind, the supercharger network had no way for paid usage until January 2017. So by default, all charging at superchargers were free. Any statements by the owner about what happens after the free period would only be speculation by the owner.
As far as the case before the car is sold, that was what I was suggesting before: the suit must be brought before the car is sold. Then the owner has to demonstrate diminished value before sale, not after sale.
I would perhaps call such a plan unlimited if it existed, but I do not agree with your characterization that there is a plan in the first place (see next paragraph). My point was more concerned with your use of "quotes" around the statement as that implies Tesla used certain terminology that they would be legally liable for.
I also want to dispel any notion that Tesla offered a "charging plan". Tesla did not offer a subscription to a free unlimited charging plan (owners can feel free to look through their purchase documents for any reference to such a plan). There was no subscription contract offered, only that supercharging access was enabled on the vehicle.
stopcrazyapp: I think depending on the market consumer protection jurisdiction might make a different assessment on Tesla's obligations and liability than you have.
It can certainly be argued Tesla advetised free all you can eat Supercharging for the life of the car and as such they'd be bound by such a promise (pre 2017 orders with SpC). I think statements beyond an already iffy "your Tesla" wording could also be found to support transferability.
Which side would win the day in court is unknown of course and could also vary by market.
It can certainly be argued Tesla advetised free all you can eat Supercharging for the life of the car and as such they'd be bound by such a promise (pre 2017 orders with SpC). I think statements beyond an already iffy "your Tesla" wording could also be found to support transferability.
Which side would win the day in court is unknown of course and could also vary by market.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I should clarify my perspective is from the American court system. I understand the EU has a much more consumer friendly court system and may see things completely different (there's been a lot of famous cases that end up completely different in the EU than it does in the US, for example multiple cases involving large US tech companies like Apple, Google, where in the US they didn't have a problem, but EU was a different case).
And obviously everything I say (and everything everyone else is saying) is just opinion and is not a court decision. None of us can predict what will happen, and Tesla haven't even decided to implement what we are discussing here (so this discussion is mostly academic).
I'm fine with holding off the discussion until next year when we find out. It seems like a waste of time to discuss a hypothetical too much if it doesn't end up happening.
Last edited:
skitch23
Member
I feel like one of us should tweet Elon and ask him directly if private sales will be grandfathered into "unlimited" SC'ing.... but I'm also afraid of what his response might be!! Maybe instead I'll just stick my head in the sand and hope for the best when it comes time to sell.
Maybe instead I'll just stick my head in the sand and hope for the best when it comes time to sell.Correct, but they did sell "free lifetime access to the supercharger network" (and yes, this is a quote, free from memory, of what I have seen and heard advertised from Tesla/Elon Musk), and they have sold customers cars with this option included. After the sale the customers *owns* the car and all rights the car has, including warranty and the supercharger access on the terms it was sold from Tesla, and can sell their ownership to a third party. Warranty and supercharger access can not be sold separate from the car it was bought with. This is the default *unless expressly avoided by the wording of the contract*. And in some jurisdiction they can't even avoid it if they try - especially the warranty. So no, they do not need to promise that you may sell the car with whatever options you bought it with, but they could perhaps in the contract denied you that right. They may even have in the contract that the supercharger access some time in the future may be limited in some way, but unless they did, I do not think that they have any right to remove something from an option you bought - whenever it was as a separate item (early TMS60) or together with some other option (lager battery) or included in the base model. Not as long as anyone besides Tesla is the owner - or they makes a deal with the owner "You let us change the supercharger access of your car, and we gives you three years free service in return" or something....
As far as I know no contract has been written (earlier then this month at least) with Tesla where they mentions "a free period" for the supercharger network. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong on this.
I have in earlier posts in this thread advocated for why this is not the case. Do you have any counter arguments?
Ok, maybe "charging plan" was not the correct wording here. But changing the name does little more then changing the name. Whatever you may want to call it, it was a free lifetime (for the life of the/yours car) access to the network without any limitations expressed. I call that "unlimited". I'm still curious to what you want to call it?
Sorry for the confusion. I regular use the "quotes" for other reasons then to make a literally quote. I agree that no written statement or contract from Tesla officially use the word "unlimited" in this context as far as I know. But Elon has used it like that in a few cases as seen on Youtube.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I'm not a expert on contracts, but as far as I know, only the warranty is a special case because there are laws protecting those specifically (in the USA the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act). My argument is more over what was actually promised in the written contract. The written purchase contract only promised that supercharging was enabled (both software and hardware). The network that the supercharger hardware/software enabled access to was free at the time. This contract does not impose extra restrictions on Tesla in never being allowed to change how they operate their network (including starting to charge money and idle fees as necessary). This is because there was no separate contract signed that guarantees the owner a certain subscription to the network (people have brought up examples like AT&T or Sirius, but those all involved a subscription contract that guarantees access to a network or service).
Basically, the supercharger network and the supercharger hardware/software on the car should be treated separately.
Perhaps my counterargument is not clear, I will try to clarify. To justify your argument, you have to come up with a contrived situation where either:
1) The seller brings real unnecessary liability on himself (by embellishing Tesla's promises: rather than just saying the car comes equipped with supercharging enabled, the owner promised separately that access is unlimited).
2) The seller colludes together with the buyer to set this up, for something that at most would be valued by a court at $2000 (good luck finding two lawyers that would be willing to work with both and set this up for such a paltry amount).
However, in the case where the suit is brought before sale, then a class action can be brought as it does not involve the above contrived situation involving a specific transaction. This is a much simpler and likely way that a suit would be brought over this issue.
I'm fine with calling it unlimited as long as you leave out the notion there was a plan. However, as I put in the start, the lack of such a plan or subscription is the core issue.
Again, we can still discuss if you want, but I suggest holding off the discussion until a few days later when the payment policy actually starts. We may be spending too much time discussing something that may never happen.
Similar threads
