Update to the Supercharger network policies

[bro1999]

In fact they do seem to care if they are disabling free SC access on CPO vehicles, or more accurately converting it to the 400kWh/year limit. We don't yet know if they intend to do the same with private sales.

Whelp, we know this for sure as of 1 Jan 2017:
- New Teslas will be restricted to 400 kWh of free Supercharging each year
- CPO Teslas will also be restricted to 400 kWh/year

Teslas purchased prior to 2017 and sold to new owners via private sale next year and beyond? Looking at the above, one can be led to believe any person looking to buy a 2016 and under Tesla next year won't be able to receive the free, unlimited SC access benefit the old owner enjoyed.

 

[callmesam]

Hmm... maybe they meant free for the life of your ownership. I don't think it would lower the value of your car because there is nowhere else buyers will be able to go to get one that does have unlimited free charging. If they end it for your car they will likely end it for CPOs.

That's not the way contracts work. Tesla doesn't get to add critical words AFTER I bought. My Mulroney sticker says "Supercharging".

Just so we are clear on this thread, I do not believe the Tesla will make supercharging limited for previous owners, even after private party sale. I am creating a hypothetical scenario which I think teslas lawyers will do as well It would be stupid for Tesla to act in this way, both ethically and contractually.

Just my opinion.

 

[mmd]

The easiest way, I would think, would be that in order to use the phone app the car has to be associated with your account.

EDIT: If upon sale the new owner did not contact Tesla and ask that it be transferred then the old owner will continue to have remote control of their car.

First I thought, it is a problem due to Tesla being the only one to service their cars, so they will know when a car changes hands.
But then, I realized, all automakers must have such knowledge, as they send recall notices to current owners. There must be some way that maps VINs to current owners.

So, I take back my question about this.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I promise here to file suit against Tesla if they try and remove Supercharging when I sell my S60. Unlike most/many owner who received Supercharging "included" I paid $2,000 for "free for life" access. Any amateur legal scholars care to wager how the courts will come down?

Canuck is a lawyer and already weighed in that he thinks the court will not side with the owner, largely because there was no contract signed that promised that the unlimited supercharger access would transfer to subsequent owners.
Update to the Supercharger network policies

There is also the consideration that once you sell the vehicle, you are no longer party to the suit because you are not the owner. You would have to somehow bring suit before you complete the sale. It would also be hard to demonstrate there is a loss of value, esp. if the policy applies uniformly to all vehicles (that means you have no current counter example of a private party vehicle that is valued higher because of supercharger access; you would have to look at previous sales and demonstrate your lower value is not just because of further depreciation from age).

 

[MP3Mike]

There must be some way that maps VINs to current owners.

Yeah, state DMV records.

 

[Sonny Daze]

That's not the way contracts work. Tesla doesn't get to add critical words AFTER I bought. My Mulroney sticker says "Supercharging".

But they can, and do, leave them out. They are not removing supercharging, just unlimited free supercharging. I actually agree that they will probably not terminate this agreement through person to person sales, but who the %&$# am I?

 

[NOLA_Mike]

There must be some way that maps VINs to current owners.

You'd think so but I regularly get recall notices, good will warranty extensions on engine injectors, etc. for BMWs and Audis I haven't owned for years.

 

[callmesam]

Canuck is a lawyer and already weighed in that he thinks the court will not side with the owner, largely because there was no contract signed that promised that the unlimited supercharger access would transfer to subsequent owners.
Update to the Supercharger network policies

There is also the consideration that once you sell the vehicle, you are no longer party to the suit because you are not the owner. You would have to somehow bring suit before you complete the sale. It would also be hard to demonstrate there is a loss of value, esp. if the policy applies uniformly to all vehicles (that means you have no current counter example of a private party vehicle that is valued higher because of supercharger access; you would have to look at previous sales and demonstrate your lower value is not just because of further depreciation from age).

It's a diminution in value claim. I'm not convinced that the multiple statements, including many in writing, about free unlimited for life of the vehicle is reconcilable with that change. I guess we'll see.

 

[msnow]

It's a diminution in value claim. I'm not convinced that the multiple statements, including many in writing, about free unlimited for life of the vehicle is reconcilable with that change. I guess we'll see.

I don't think they will change their position on free charging for "the life of your Tesla vehicle" either but they might if your Tesla vehicle becomes someone else's Tesla vehicle. You're right, we will see.

 

[Model 3]

There is also the consideration that once you sell the vehicle, you are no longer party to the suit because you are not the owner.

I disagree. He sells a car with free unlimited supercharger access. The new owner finds that the car does not have free unlimited supercharger access, and goes back to the seller and say "Hey, you sold me something I have not got. You will have to pay me back $X or take the car and give me all of my money back". The he is a party to the suit as he has lost money on the sale as the car no longer has what he believed to have bought for the lifetime of the car. But on the other hand, if the buyer does not care for the unlimited free access, then there is no case...

... but anyway, we will know what Tesla does in this case either by Tesla telling us in an update, or by the time the first buyer of an private sold Tesla w/free unlimited access can document that the free unlimited access was removed. At that time I think any current owner with a "free unlimited for the life of the car" access is in a position to make a claim as the car they bought have lost some of it's value.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I disagree. He sells a car with free unlimited supercharger access. The new owner finds that the car does not have free unlimited supercharger access, and goes back to the seller and say "Hey, you sold me something I have not got. You will have to pay me back $X or take the car and give me all of my money back". The he is a party to the suit as he has lost money on the sale as the car no longer has what he believed to have bought for the lifetime of the car. But on the other hand, if the buyer does not care for the unlimited free access, then there is no case...

... but anyway, we will know what Tesla does in this case either by Tesla telling us in an update, or by the time the first buyer of an private sold Tesla w/free unlimited access can document that the free unlimited access was removed. At that time I think any current owner with a "free unlimited for the life of the car" access is in a position to make a claim as the car they bought have lost some of it's value.

Then that becomes a suit between you and the new owner (presuming you separately promised "free unlimited supercharger access"), not Tesla and the new owner. The car sticker and original purchase contract only says the supercharging is active (and it would be, the new owner would get 400kWh a year like everyone else), nothing about "free unlimited supercharger access".

Also, I am not sure where you get the unlimited term. The direct quote is:
"Supercharging is free for the life of your Tesla vehicle, once the Supercharger option is enabled." Others have pointed out the "your Tesla vehicle" can be used by Tesla to say it doesn't transfer to subsequent owners.

 

[Tomasz]

Also, I am not sure where you get the unlimited term. The direct quote is:
"Supercharging is free for the life of your Tesla vehicle, once the Supercharger option is enabled." Others have pointed out the "your Tesla vehicle" can be used by Tesla to say it doesn't transfer to subsequent owners.

I think 'your Tesla vehicle' means a specific unit identified by VIN number. Not 'a unit owned by John Smith'. We'll see

 

[stopcrazypp]

I think 'your Tesla vehicle' means a specific unit identified by VIN number. Not 'a unit owned by John Smith'. We'll see

Yes, we'll see what happens (so far still unknown what Tesla will do with private party vehicle sales), but the phrasing is quite peculiar even though I did not notice it previously. They could have easily said the below and it would flow much better if they meant the vehicle only specifically:
"Supercharging is free for the life of the vehicle, once the Supercharger option is enabled."

 

[Canuck]

Canuck is a lawyer and already weighed in that he thinks the court will not side with the owner, largely because there was no contract signed that promised that the unlimited supercharger access would transfer to subsequent owners.

I practice insurance defence law which has nothing to do with this area of law. My opinion is simply my own personal opinion based on a review of the documents that came with my vehicle. It is not a legal opinion. (I would need to at least get paid for that ).

But I think we're putting the cart in front of the horse here. Tesla has not said that they will take free Supercharging away with private sale -- only with CPO sales according to @Indpowr. If they do take it away with private sales, I think they are opening themselves up to a lawsuit. I won't be a party to it but @callmesam has said he would take action, and perhaps he would also consider being the representative plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. I would just warn him (as an individual and not a lawyer) to read his agreement with his lawyer carefully, even if it is a contingency agreement, since payment of disbursements, and the other party's costs and disbursements, may not be covered by the contingency agreement, and often are not. It is certainly not a suit I would be part of, but it is one I would take great interest in following. I don't know what the outcome would be because it's not my area of law, but even if it was, a lawyer would need full document disclosure before providing an opinion and a review of precedent case-law, and even then the initial opinion could change following discoveries.

 

[SW2Fiddler]

Yes, we'll see what happens (so far still unknown what Tesla will do with private party vehicle sales), but the phrasing is quite peculiar even though I did not notice it previously. They could have easily said the below and it would flow much better if they meant the vehicle only specifically:
"Supercharging is free for the life of the vehicle, once the Supercharger option is enabled."

And for a great while it was:

Supercharging is free for the life of Model S, once the Supercharger option is enabled.

And it has never been:

Supercharging is free for as long as you own your...

 

[JCB_Arizona]

I'll throw my two cents in...

People "enabled" autopilot 2.0 and full driving, just as Supercharging is enabled.

Will Tesla disable autopilot and full driving when the car is sold? Unlikely. So I'm betting that supercharging will also not be disabled when the car is privately sold.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I practice insurance defence law which has nothing to do with this area of law. My opinion is simply my own personal opinion based on a review of the documents that came with my vehicle. It is not a legal opinion. (I would need to at least get paid for that ).

But I think we're putting the cart in front of the horse here. Tesla has not said that they will take free Supercharging away with private sale -- only with CPO sales according to @Indpowr. If they do take it away with private sales, I think they are opening themselves up to a lawsuit. I won't be a party to it but @callmesam has said he would take action, and perhaps he would also consider being the representative plaintiff in a class action lawsuit. I would just warn him (as an individual and not a lawyer) to read his agreement with his lawyer carefully, even if it is a contingency agreement, since payment of disbursements, and the other party's costs and disbursements, may not be covered by the contingency agreement, and often are not. It is certainly not a suit I would be part of, but it is one I would take great interest in following. I don't know what the outcome would be because it's not my area of law, but even if it was, a lawyer would need full document disclosure before providing an opinion and a review of precedent case-law, and even then the initial opinion could change following discoveries.

Yes, I was going to mention that it was your personal opinion, but left it out. I'm fully aware legal opinion requires a lot more fact finding and familiarity with the relevant laws and thus it costs money . However, the OP did ask for "amateur legal scholars" to weigh in and I think your personal opinion alone is probably well above that level.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I'll throw my two cents in...

People "enabled" autopilot 2.0 and full driving, just as Supercharging is enabled.

Will Tesla disable autopilot and full driving when the car is sold? Unlikely. So I'm betting that supercharging will also not be disabled when the car is privately sold.

To clarify, the possible change being discussed is not that supercharging will be disabled, just that it will be subject to the 400kWh per year free and pay per use for usage beyond that.

Autopilot is also different in that it doesn't involve a separate network, while supercharging does.

 

[Topher]

the secret is solar

Yes. Why there are any houses in CA without solar is beyond me.

~$25K for solar install / $39.48 per 300 miles ("full charge") = 633 full charges, or about 12 years of "prepaid fuel" at one charge per week.

A slightly less WA G, one charge of 100kWh per week is 14kWh per day, for California call it a 8kW system @ $8k. or about 4 years of 'prepaid fuel' and 21 years of 'free fuel'.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Canuck]

Solar power at 1¢/kWh by 2025 – “The promise of quasi-infinite and free energy is here”