NigelM
Recovering Member
Absolutely no doubt that they'll get the FW released eventually. The big issue is the reputation Tesla is building and the potential longer-term hinderance that might be.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
-
Tesla's Supercharger Team was recently laid off. We discuss what this means for the company on today's TMC Podcast streaming live at 1PM PDT. You can watch on X or on YouTube where you can participate in the live chat.
Absolutely no doubt that they'll get the FW released eventually. The big issue is the reputation Tesla is building and the potential longer-term hinderance that might be.
3000 miles on my P85D now.... The thrill doesn't wear off.
Although I've become accustomed to not expecting any deadlines to be hit, I'm still with WK on the main issue. Bottom line is they sold us a car that doesn't have what we paid for. It's that simple. Even as a shareholder I'd be willing to join a lawsuit to recoup some of the money we put down that went to nothing. I'm a scientist, not a lawyer... But there is no doubt in my mind, this isn't legal.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
No doubt? Where in your contract are the specifications you will be suing over? If you can't find them in the contract documents, then there's something at law called the "parol evidence rule". If you read about it, it should at least give you some doubt about being successful in a lawsuit: Parol evidence rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't get me wrong, I'm not sticking up for Tesla on this issue. I'm simply raising the doubt for which you say there is none in your mind.
I'm probably doing so because the "I'll sue" crowd irks me, but that's a separate issue. I'm a lawyer (not a scientist) so I probably shouldn't be irked by the "I'll sue" crowd. They keep me really busy... but they still irk me.
Andyw2100
Well-Known Member
I am not a lawyer, and I am in no way encouraging people to take legal action. But I've got to sat that in my opinion, which, granted, is that of an amateur, you're off the mark here.
From what I recall from my business law classes, if there is any ambiguity in a contract, it is to be interpreted in favor of the party that did not draw it up. The contracts that we were bound by when we purchased our P85Ds were drawn up by Tesla. They made no attempt to spell out every possible specification of the car, like the advertised range. So a reasonable person entering into a contract with Tesla, basing their expectation on information found on Tesla's website, since it was not explicitly in the contract itself, would seem completely reasonable. For Tesla to deliver a car substantially different from the one advertised would, in fact, seem to be grounds for legal action.
Again, I am not suggesting any, and I do not anticipate taking any. But for you, as an attorney, to suggest that this Parol evidence rule would apply, and be the reason Tesla would prevail in a case like this just really does not seem right to me.
Would any other attorneys like to weigh in?
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Where did I say "Tesla would prevail" or that the parol evidence rule would apply?
You have clearly misunderstood me. I never provided an opinion on the ultimate issue. I simply raised the doubt for which Rice390 said there was none. Maybe the parol evidence rule applies, maybe not = doubt.
To raise more doubt in reply to your argument: This is not a case of ambiguity that requires a ruling. That's because there is no clause that is ambiguous. Either the specifications are in the contract or they are not. Hence, the parol evidence rule.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
I don't consider taking arguments to an absurdity as proving a point. Besides, the dimensions are in the contract. You bought a Model S - that's right in the contract and it's easy to prove what the dimensions of a Model S are without being concerned about the parol evidence rule.
Again, however, I never said anything about "having a case" or not having a case. Clearly, there are grounds for a case. The issue was whether that case has any doubt. I see no doubt if you got a miniature car. How they got the 85kW battery in it is another issue since that is in the specs...
Last edited:
EarlyAdopter
Active Member
Actually, the Monroney sticker is where you'd look for any legal action in the US. There's significant merchant and regulatory law behind those window stickers.
I was sold a car that, according to its Monroney sticker, has better highway efficiency than my previous P85. It does not... yet.
Incidentally, I was also sold a car that has "Next Generation Seats." It also does not have those... yet, either.
I'm not sure what time frame is afforded for under the law for "due bill" items to correct for deviations from the Monroney, but I suspect someone would have a reasonable case to pursue under it.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Cases with even admittedly false Monroney stickers still have doubts as to whether they will be successful. In fact, Cadillac tried recently to have a case dismissed over its admittedly false safety rating on their Monroney stickers. The case wasn't dismissed but clearly there's some doubt as to whether it will ultimately be successful.
Again, I only said it's not a case without any doubt. I never said there is not a "reasonable case to pursue". It certainly sounds reasonable to me.
I am also not encouraging others to sue Tesla, but it is also pretty clear to me that if such a lawsuit did happen today, Tesla would lose. Tesla did advertise a range on their website at 65mph, which is impossible to achieve unless you are going down a very large hill. The Monroney sticker also promises a more efficient car versus the p85.
Of course there is some ambiguity here, and if Tesla had at least "almost" the same range as the p85 on the highway, they would probably prevail. But that isn't the case.
That said, I would strongly suggest others bring this to Tesla's attention directly if it is that major of an issue for you. If you want to return your car, I am sure they would oblige. I also fully expect Tesla to solve the problem, but acknowledge that even though they said "end of jan 2015", it might be another month or so and still only be late, and not a clear case of fraud. But there is a clock ticking, and at some point, nobody would say it's reasonable to wait any longer.
Of course there is some ambiguity here, and if Tesla had at least "almost" the same range as the p85 on the highway, they would probably prevail. But that isn't the case.
That said, I would strongly suggest others bring this to Tesla's attention directly if it is that major of an issue for you. If you want to return your car, I am sure they would oblige. I also fully expect Tesla to solve the problem, but acknowledge that even though they said "end of jan 2015", it might be another month or so and still only be late, and not a clear case of fraud. But there is a clock ticking, and at some point, nobody would say it's reasonable to wait any longer.
1) how much did y'all pay for the insomnia option? Clearly that works!
2) this talk of lawsuit at this point ridiculous. Tesla has acknowledged gap and announced measures to address. The likelihood anyone could mobilize class action before tesla addresses problem is low. Probability of wasted legal fees high. If they demonstrate inability to address over a reasonable engineering timeframe, fire away! But not if you lease, because you have recourse of happiness guarantee.
3) none of this negates that tesla needs to be much more careful with communications of engineering timeframes. I just don't understand why JB didn't say "we have a fix designed and will expedite it to fleet ASAP in Q115." Everyone would appreciate it takes time to test/tweak.
2) this talk of lawsuit at this point ridiculous. Tesla has acknowledged gap and announced measures to address. The likelihood anyone could mobilize class action before tesla addresses problem is low. Probability of wasted legal fees high. If they demonstrate inability to address over a reasonable engineering timeframe, fire away! But not if you lease, because you have recourse of happiness guarantee.
3) none of this negates that tesla needs to be much more careful with communications of engineering timeframes. I just don't understand why JB didn't say "we have a fix designed and will expedite it to fleet ASAP in Q115." Everyone would appreciate it takes time to test/tweak.
Krugerrand
Meow
I'd go with the obvious answer: He likely thought it would be done by the end of January.
I know from reading previous posts that you have reached a state of acceptance (wish I was there) regarding EM/TM. Do you believe the market will be as accepting with these types of misses? *****Not trying to be controversial/provacative. Just trying to get your take on how the market will respond to missed dates in the short term. Long term we will all probably laugh about it.
I don't consider taking arguments to an absurdity as proving a point. Besides, the dimensions are in the contract. You bought a Model S - that's right in the contract and it's easy to prove what the dimensions of a Model S are without being concerned about the parol evidence rule.
Again, however, I never said anything about "having a case" or not having a case. Clearly, there are grounds for a case. The issue was whether that case has any doubt. I see no doubt if you got a miniature car. How they got the 85kW battery in it is another issue since that is in the specs...
So, the miniature car scenario, no doubt you could win a case. Let's take it to the other extreme. Let's say the cup holder can only hold a kids juice box. Okay - probably don't have a case.
The mini car - blatant false advertising. The cup holder, not so much. Our scenario with the range issue falls between those two. Where exactly that falls is somewhat subjective, and I understand your point about there being at least "some" doubt. But, we're talking about a feature of the car that no doubt heavily influenced people to purchase the car. Somebody on here said they chose the S85 because of the range issues. That is a perfect example of how some early P85D folks would have made a different choice with accurate information.
Just a quick search on false advertising... Has 5 things for proof of requirement:
1). False statement of fact has been made about the goods or services. Check.
2). The statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its target audience. Check.
3). The deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decision of its audience. Check.
4). The advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce. Check.
5). The deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff, usually attributed to money the customer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. Check.
Again, maybe you have a differing opinion about the severity of the issue which gives you doubt concerning the legality, but as an owner of the car, there is no doubt in my mind this whole debacle is grounds for legal action.
That said, I've never returned anything in my life... So I'm not planning to rally the troops and storm the castle. I honestly don't really care that much about clawing back a few bucks. But if somebody else put something together and a paper made its way to my desk, I'd sign up based solely on giving TM a swift kick in the ass.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
I remember watching everyone get worked up over the SuperCharger roll out and look at us now. I hope the same will happen with Torque Sleep.
I think it'll be much easier to do anything on a legal front if more weeks pass on this. Lets say a class action were filed late in February (while still no update) and then soon after the update hits and fixes the issues. I'm betting Tesla could certainly still be held liable for the time in between delivery and XX/XX/XXXX when the update finally came out in some way or another.
A not often mentioned (but valid) point is that the increased usage is more slightly more taxing on the battery, inverters, chargers, motors, etc. Honestly, I think a reasonable remedy would be to reset the warranty clock/odometer on related parts and service by at least the window in question (delivery->update) at no cost to the affected owner.
A not often mentioned (but valid) point is that the increased usage is more slightly more taxing on the battery, inverters, chargers, motors, etc. Honestly, I think a reasonable remedy would be to reset the warranty clock/odometer on related parts and service by at least the window in question (delivery->update) at no cost to the affected owner.
Similar threads
- Article
