Dead Calm

[AWDtsla]

Looks like he got rid of all his videos... oh well

I dug the video out of my browser cache. I have it saved, if anyone needs it (Like the prosecution).

Have fun in jail buddy.

 

[AbeFromin]

"Dead Calm"

i thought you were referring to this website...... :frown:

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Arise thread, thread arise!

The lemon law, or laws technically, can be a little complicated in CA. There's the Tanner Consumer protection act, which states...

1) The same nonconformity results in a condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the vehicle is driven and the nonconformity has been subject to repair two or more times by the manufacturer or its agents, and the buyer or lessee has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity.
(2) The same nonconformity has been subject to repair four or more times by the manufacturer or its agents and the buyer has at least once directly notified the manufacturer of the need for the repair of the nonconformity.
(3) The vehicle is out of service by reason of repair of nonconformities by the manufacturer or its agents for a cumulative total of more than 30 calendar days since delivery of the vehicle to the buyer. The 30-day limit shall be extended only if repairs cannot be performed due to conditions beyond the control of the manufacturer or its agents. The buyer shall be required to directly notify the manufacturer pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) only if the manufacturer has clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the buyer, with the warranty or the owner's manual, the provisions of this section and that of subdivision (d) of Section 1793.2, including the requirement that the buyer must notify the manufacturer directly pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2). The notification, if required, shall be sent to the address, if any, specified clearly and conspicuously by the manufacturer in the warranty or owner's manual This presumption shall be a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of proof, and it may be asserted by the buyer in any civil action, including an action in small claims court, or other formal or informal proceeding.

In this case, if the OP claims that the car losing power is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, then their car may fall under the Tanner Consumer protection act. They can go to arbitration, and in arbitration it would be up to Tesla to prove that this nonconformity couldn't result in death or serious bodily injury, or that they've repaired it, etc...

The same applies if it's a non-life/limb threatening issue that's been repaired four times, or if the car has been in the shop for more than 30 calendar days.

If someone's car clearly meets these provisions, they generally have no problems getting a buy-back.

There's also the Song-Beverley consumer warranty act that applies to problems across the entire warranty period.

Song Beverly - Dept of Consumer Affairs - Arbitration Certification Program (Lemon Law)

The Tanner act is the stronger of the two, but manufacturers may settle in court in either case depending on how pervasive the problem is and what the potential consequences of it are. I don't think Tesla would settle in arbitration or court for something like this, since they could probably do a good job proving the issue couldn't result in harm, but if someone's car was dead 4 times in 18k miles/18 months, they might.