Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla Sues German (actually Swiss) Auto Parts Maker Over Model X Door Delays

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
What is the point of the lawsuit? Move on, Tesla. What next? Sue to new lithium companies Tesla signed deals with because -- surprise surprise -- they can't deliver any lithium?

I am suspect of companies that claim they would be successful, if not for those evil...

...falcon wing door makers
...other companies trying to make electric vehicles
...other companies trying to make clean cars in other variants (fuel cells)
...car dealerships
...oil companies
...existing car makers
...short sellers
...monopost seat makers
...Republicans
...Democrats
...Wall Street investment banks
...anyone who criticizes analysts employed by Wall Street investment banks
...people who question the projections put forth by Elon Musk
...Electrical utilities (SCTY)
...
 
What is the point of the lawsuit? Move on, Tesla. What next? Sue to new lithium companies Tesla signed deals with because -- surprise surprise -- they can't deliver any lithium?

The point of the lawsuit was contained clearly in the article:

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California, aims to stop the supplier, Hoerbiger Automotive Comfort Systems LLC, from demanding more payment from Tesla after the electric-vehicle maker cut ties with the supplier in May 2015.

It appears the company wanted additional payment. The only way Tesla would be not liable for additional payment would be if the vendor failed to deliver. A lawsuit is the next step in a disagreement such as this.
 
Do you think Tesla would ever abandon the Falcon Wing doors down the road due to expense, complexity, and reliability, and just offer a Model X with normal rear doors? I'm talking way down the road, like two or three years -- after the Model 3 is launched.

Also, for demand reasons for people that don't necessarily want the FW doors.

I think it could happen.
 
Do you think Tesla would ever abandon the Falcon Wing doors down the road due to expense, complexity, and reliability, and just offer a Model X with normal rear doors? I'm talking way down the road, like two or three years -- after the Model 3 is launched.

Also, for demand reasons for people that don't necessarily want the FW doors.

I think it could happen.
The X will likely always have the Falcon Wing doors, but they may offer another SUV at some point that doesn't have them.
 
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern California, aims to stop the supplier, Hoerbiger Automotive Comfort Systems LLC

I have never heard of a german "LLC" company. We have GmbHs, GBRs, AGs... - but LLCs, wtf? Isn't that a british limited liability thing? Sounds like a company from the e-mail SPAM folder...
 
Ask yourself whether you want to hear others' opinions. Or maybe you all want to hear only positive opinions on Tesla. Again, I'm short the stock due to the math. Nothing against Tesla as a company. I'd love to have a Model S. I think I'll go back to reading. Not sure why I would attempt to inject reality when people just want religion.

- - - Updated - - -

One more thing I should add to the list of things Tesla fanboys like to blame: irrational stock markets. How ironic some Tesla disciples want to blame irrational stock markets for FAILING to keep Tesla above a $30 billion valuation. This for a company that makes 50,000 cars annually at a net loss (yes one must factor in sales costs and overhead in determining profit -- not just the costs you want while excluding others). Tesla will probably continue to grow sales annually, perhaps to 75K this year and perhaps 100K thereafter. I have real doubts it will get to 500K or 300K annually, and I think it will be extraordinarily difficult to make any money on the Model 3. Again this would be a shame because I like the idea of a transition toward vehicle electrification. I just think it will take far longer than Musk realizes, with much more competition. But go ahead, bring on the hate. Excommunicate those who disagree. I'll still be happy to read, still liking the Model S (beautiful car), and still short the stock simply because math says it's worth maybe $50 per share not $200.
 
Here's the actual Complaint filed by Tesla's law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, for those of us who like to read these things:

http://arstechnica.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1-main.pdf

What is the point of the lawsuit? Move on, Tesla.

This reminds me of someone who says "I didn't like that book" but when you ask them if they read it, they say "no".

I see he's also shorting the stock. How many people here bought their Tesla shorting the stock? Now, how many people here bought their Tesla buying low then selling the stock? Oops, I better not let facts conflict with his...

add[ing] to the list of things Tesla fanboys like to blame

This is the best part:

Not sure why I would attempt to inject reality when people just want religion.

Yes, those Tesla shares at $34 just a few short years ago were not reality. They were pie in the sky "religion"... ;)
 
Model X door lawsuit

Yes Tesla must try and recover damages which has caused undue harm to Tesla and its customers. More important is that they are not following up with high level timeline or Pert other critical path type of monitoring for all subs-- hopefully as time goes on they will learn that the latter is mandatory since there are many major project elements of a vehicle where its very difficult to recover if there is a major screw-up. Most of the time you need to send a team of in house or out sourced experts to be part of the subs team and not just beat them up. Lawsuits take management time and the lawyer's get the most $$$'s Sometimes the company WINS and celebrates but don't realize it may have been a big LOSS. Hope some day I get the x I ordered in 3/2013 before I pass on
 
Yes Tesla must try and recover damages which has caused undue harm to Tesla and its customers. More important is that they are not following up with high level timeline or Pert other critical path type of monitoring for all subs-- hopefully as time goes on they will learn that the latter is mandatory since there are many major project elements of a vehicle where its very difficult to recover if there is a major screw-up. Most of the time you need to send a team of in house or out sourced experts to be part of the subs team and not just beat them up. Lawsuits take management time and the lawyer's get the most $$$'s Sometimes the company WINS and celebrates but don't realize it may have been a big LOSS. Hope some day I get the x I ordered in 3/2013 before I pass on

They're not suing to recover damages. They are suing to establish that they don't have to pay for work that wasn't done because the supplier couldn't deliver what they promised. These are very different things. What supplier would want to work for Tesla if they had a reputation for turning around and suing without provocation? There would have been no lawsuit if Hoerbiger hadn't sent an unjustified bill.
 
So, if TM is suing the US LLC, are the parent company's assets protected? or at-risk?

I'm thinking Bonnie's comments are spot-on: TM just doesn't want to pay any more (seems like they already paid some for initial prototypes) for a non-performing sub. Counter-suing for more than just "revoke your invoices" seems like a reasonable way to convince the other lawyers to settle out of court quick (reducing legal fees for both and sending the message that TM isn't going to be a pushover). I'm pretty sure Tesla wants to work with more responsible, innovative subs - like those die-makers in MI:tongue:

Litigiousness is a huge American character flaw, and IIRC TM's response to the lemon-guy seemed to bring out "amused disbelief" from non-US TMCers and US TMC-ers were more likely to want TM to bankrupt the guy for his sliminess. IANAL, but I think their response to that situation and this are reasonable and appropriate. Didn't Orville and Wilbur Wright lose their R&D lead on aircrafts because they were so consumed in the legalities of defending their patents?