They didn't say it was "Tesla counsel" that said it, it's a claim by the plaintiff that "Tesla" said it, but at the moment we don't know who he meant by "Tesla" (it could be as service rep as I suspect, it could be a sales rep, it could be counsel, we don't know). Read the actual statement, don't go by the title of this thread, which is inaccurate.
We don’t know. It might be a claim by the plaintiff that Tesla said it. Or it might be a claim by Tesla counsel. Or Tesla counsel response to a plaintiff claim. But we should be able to figure that out if someone can get us the preceding documents.
What we do know, thanks to
@JB47394 is that the judge references LIDAR relative to the statute of limitations, and discoverability about whether the plaintiff’s vehicle is capable of FSD and how that might affect the statute of limitations. Meaning when it was discoverable that the car wasn’t capable of FSD is a question of fact. If it were a question of law, the case could be dismissed if the judge would rule on the question. But as a question of fact, it can’t be dismissed, so the case goes on.
I think the plaintiff is going to argue that it is a fair assumption that if Tesla sold the car as FSD capable, and Tesla learned that the car needed LIDAR to make that happen, that the plaintiff could assume that Tesla would add the LIDAR, because of course Tesla said it was capable.
My attorney friends, that I am quoting, are not surprised by this document by the way. They think the fraud case is obvious.
Also, the title is a working title. I can change it to whatever we agree. Sorry
@MarkDave, we’re hijacking your thread. Nice catch by the way.