teslasguy
MSP P#1117
Can you post a link to the quote?The topic was moved to Off-Topic, so you can go read the quote there. But basically, I was right, the optimists were wrong, Tesla's lawyers are incompetent.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can you post a link to the quote?The topic was moved to Off-Topic, so you can go read the quote there. But basically, I was right, the optimists were wrong, Tesla's lawyers are incompetent.
I actually think they'll probably "do the right thing" now -- previous information from Tesla was problematic but the most recent information sounds like they're paying more attention now. That's the purpose of being hysterical about such things, incidentally.
Bad news, folks: Tesla has said in so many words that unless they get an FTC waiver they are violating the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act:
Quote from George Blankenship, Chief of Nickel-and-Diming Customers:
This is clearly illegal. By specifying "Tesla Certified" he has specified a branded service, which is *precisely* the form of tie-in which is banned by the Act.
The topic was moved to Off-Topic, so you can go read the quote there. But basically, I was right, the optimists were wrong, Tesla's lawyers are incompetent.
Bad news, folks: Tesla has said in so many words that unless they get an FTC waiver they are violating the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act:
Quote from George Blankenship, Chief of Nickel-and-Diming Customers:
This is clearly illegal. By specifying "Tesla Certified" he has specified a branded service, which is *precisely* the form of tie-in which is banned by the Act.
Tesla's lawyers are *incompetent*. Completely incompetent. There are at least three ways they could have retained essentially the same pricing scheme without breaking the law, and -- unless they got that FTC waiver -- they chose the lawbreaking way.
You clearly seem to know a good deal about the relevant laws and being tenacious and vocal, especially to Tesla, is great.That's the purpose of being hysterical about such things, incidentally.
re: neroden's conversation with George.
I suppose I look at this from two perspectives: 1) practical and 2) legal. I would not want my car serviced by any dealer/mechanic other than Tesla when it comes to the battery or electrical system. Every other consumable I am happy to have my local mechanic or myself take care of. Lastly, vis-a-vis the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, I am irate that I am compelled to pay Tesla and only Tesla to do all service.
This is clearly illegal. By specifying "Tesla Certified" he has specified a branded service, which is *precisely* the form of tie-in which is banned by the Act.
Could TM solve this problem by offering full service training to independent techs? They could charge for the training (hey a new revenue stream) and sell them any necessary special tools. Very few if any independents would take them up on the offer for years. It wouldn't pay for an independent until there is a very large installed fleet of Tesla cars, but it seems on the face of it that it could satisfy the letter of the law.
That's assuming it IS a problem. I still have not seen wording in the warranty that would make it a problem. I interpreted what I read as saying that IF a non-Tesla certified technician worked on the car and IF damage occurred as a result, then that damage is not covered under the warranty. Which is perfectly reasonable.
"Tesla Certified" means similar to when a dealership says "Only by a certified ASE Mechanic." If that is the case, dealerships, computer companies, Electronics manufactures, ect. are violating the law.
You are wrong....
ASE (automotive service excellence) is a neutral party not affiliated with any automotive company.... VERY different than TESLA Certified.
Not what I was saying, just pointing to a point of reference where -most- electronics manufactures and other manufactures use similar terminology in their own warranty clauses.
Bad news, folks: Tesla has said in so many words that unless they get an FTC waiver they are violating the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act:
Quote from George Blankenship, Chief of Nickel-and-Diming Customers:
This is clearly illegal. By specifying "Tesla Certified" he has specified a branded service, which is *precisely* the form of tie-in which is banned by the Act.
Tesla's lawyers are *incompetent*. Completely incompetent. There are at least three ways they could have retained essentially the same pricing scheme without breaking the law, and -- unless they got that FTC waiver -- they chose the lawbreaking way.
I think you would be best served to cancel your S reservation (if you have one) and forget about Tesla.
While I would agree that he is getting carried away with his posing, Tesla's legal team is not exactly competent. The only issue I see is GB's post about voiding the warranty if you do not pay the Tesla service costs. I'm sure he is regretting that post and also losing sleep because of it. It was clearly not worded right.I think you would be best served to cancel your S reservation (if you have one) and forget about Tesla. It seems to me that if you persist in making such hard claims about the legality of Tesla's business practices you are just painting a big bull's eye on your back for Tesla's legal team. In fact I would be disappointed if they don't take you to task over some of your statements made on this forum. In my opinion you have crossed the line on more than one occasion.