Stop the Press! Tesla announces REAL HP numbers for P85D and P90L

[stopcrazypp]

Correct me if I'm wrong, (I'm sure you will), but my understanding of contract law is that if there are ambiguities, they are generally decided in favor of the party that did not draw up the contract.

In this case it sounds like Tesla left all specifics of the car out of the contract. Are you suggesting that they could have delivered a Model S with two wheels, not have been in violation of the contract, and thus not be taken to court over that, because the contract does not specify that a Model S is to have four wheels? If so, I would respectfully disagree with that assessment of the situation. I believe since Tesla drew up the contract, and since it is understood Model S cars have four wheels, if Tesla delivered one with just two wheels, they would be held responsible for doing so.

Similarly, the specs of the P85D were equally well known--published on the Tesla website--and thus I believe Tesla can be held responsible for delivering those as well, for the same reasons.

The four wheel requirement is included by the car having a Monroney sticker that is incorporated into the contract. A two wheeled vehicle (like a motorcycle) does not have a Monroney sticker and Tesla would not be able to deliver a two wheeled vehicle and still satisfy the contract. If you are talking about the case where the vehicle is not a motorcycle, but is simply delivered with two wheels/tires missing, your remedy would be to refuse delivery. If you accept the vehicle anyways, I am not sure you would be legally entitled to anything in contract law. You could probably claim lemon law or for it violating federal vehicle standards (provided you had proof it was missing wheels during delivery and not you removing it afterwards).

What is a better analogy is that the Tesla vehicle contract allows them to change the design of the vehicle for anything not specified in the contract or sticker. An example are the lighted vanity mirrors and reading lights issue. Even though Tesla advertised them, according to the contract, Tesla is allowed to not include them if it is not listed in the purchase contract.

- - - Updated - - -

But I think you just supported my point.

The same part of the agreement that says "Vehicle Configuration and Description - Model S" that allows for it to be understood that a Model S has four wheels, would need the description of the Model S from the website for anyone to know the complete specifications of the Model S. Anything left out of that section that is part of the car, that should not be left out of the contract arbitrarily, I would think would be considered an ambiguity. In other words, if the car is not completely described, that is ambiguous, and thus Tesla would be held responsible for the ambiguity.

I think his point is that the Model S can be trivially described as a car and any judge would roll their eyes if Tesla tried to deliver a vehicle with only two wheels as satisfying a Model S motor vehicle purchase contract. And as I pointed out previously, the Monroney sticker being incorporated into the contract already specifies the Model S as not a two wheeled vehicle. This is not as straight forward for the horsepower issue, since the specific horsepower is not a trivial characteristic of the vehicle.

 

[Canuck]

But I think you just supported my point.

The same part of the agreement that says "Vehicle Configuration and Description - Model S" that allows for it to be understood that a Model S has four wheels, would need the description of the Model S from the website for anyone to know the complete specifications of the Model S. Anything left out of that section that is part of the car, that should not be left out of the contract arbitrarily, I would think would be considered an ambiguity. In other words, if the car is not completely described, that is ambiguous, and thus Tesla would be held responsible for the ambiguity.

I don't follow you. I don't think anyone needs to go to the Model S website to determine if a Model S has four wheels. But this is about hp so let's stick to that issue. If you didn't get the hp you wanted or were told, or what was stated on the website, then you needed to ensure that the hp was in the contract before you signed it because you specifically agreed that "Prior agreements, oral statements, negotiations, communications or representations about the Vehicle sold under this Agreement are superseded by this Agreement. Terms relating to the purchase not expressly contained herein are not binding." Tesla will likely argue the parol evidence rule along with the allegation that the car does, in fact, have the hp motor number on the website, and the judge can fall back on parol evidence if he/she wants. That's all I am saying. I have no idea how this will all, in fact, play out in court, if it ever gets there. No one can ever predict what will happen in Court. Appeal courts overrule lower courts so even with a judgment it's not certain until appeals are exhausted, abandoned or not pursued.

 

[P85DEE]

I don't follow you. I don't think anyone needs to go to the Model S website to determine if a Model S has four wheels. But this is about hp so let's stick to that issue. If you didn't get the hp you wanted or were told, or what was stated on the website, then you needed to ensure that the hp was in the contract before you signed it because you specifically agreed that "Prior agreements, oral statements, negotiations, communications or representations about the Vehicle sold under this Agreement are superseded by this Agreement. Terms relating to the purchase not expressly contained herein are not binding." Tesla will likely argue the parol evidence rule along with the allegation that the car does, in fact, have the hp motor number on the website, and the judge can fall back on parol evidence if he/she wants. That's all I am saying. I have no idea how this will all, in fact, play out in court, if it ever gets there. No one can ever predict what will happen in Court. Appeal courts overrule lower courts so even with a judgment it's not certain until appeals are exhausted, abandoned or not pursued.

Guys I really don't see it being explained any better than that.

It is clear to me, just from reading the contract for myself, that Tesla's legal team covered all of the bases for just this type of occurrence and many other occurrences both foreseen and some unforeseen.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Tesla is pressed, they are going to argue that the car does, in fact, have the hp motor number stated on the website, and they are going to produce documentation demonstrating that.

Once they are able to prove that, and the first domino falls, well then the only arguments left, are:

1. They did not "explain" what the term meant.

2. They used the term in an attempt to confuse purchasers.

Both are going to be tough sells once the first domino falls

 

[Jian Yang]

Any updates on the Scandinavian lawsuit case? Any rulings yet?

 

[JonG]

At least in the uk, if a judge rules a contract to be unfair (and any term that may be unreasonable to the consumer can count) then the whole contract can be void and in effect worthless. Further it's not just about the contract it's about consumer law and protection, Ie you can't over rule statutory obligations through a contract.

All said, it doesn't matter what we speculate or believe, if it goes to court, it will be the courts view that matters.

 

[Johan]

Any updates on the Scandinavian lawsuit case? Any rulings yet?

First of all, in Scandinavia the case will likely first be examined by governmental consumer agencies. The agencies have some power and their rulings in cases are usually considered legally binding. However, any ruling from such an agency can be challenged in which case it will go to the courts. With regards to any future court rulings I wouldn't expect that in at least 1 year.

 

[Auzie]

Where's the point's store where we can exchange our points for free gifts and travel?

I would not give them for the world, they are priceless. Just wear green dots with pride, they make wearer look cool, green and respectable

....................... With regards to any future court rulings I wouldn't expect that in at least 1 year.

I am looking forward to reading this thread for another year

So many more punches coming

Speaking of fights, thanks for Holms Auzie!

You're welcome Lola, anytime. For all of you out there that enjoy a good punch up, here is a great punch up to feast on whilst we are in the intermezzo in this fight

 

[Hookmaker]

Any updates on the Scandinavian lawsuit case? Any rulings yet?

No updates, ball is in Tesla "court" to answer Consumer lawyers before deadline Nov. 27th. (Denmark),

 

[Jaff]

Hey Auzie, which one is Roussey?

 

[lolachampcar]

The one that ended up flat on its back I would guess.

I've got nothing against Ronda but they over hyped her and her capabilities. She has one weapon in the arsenal and the fight kinda went back to that old adage that you hit a black belt in the face and they become a brown belt.....

back to hp and who promised what.............

If Elon promised performance in a forest and no one heard him, did he really make a promise?

 

[Canuck]

At least in the uk, if a judge rules a contract to be unfair (and any term that may be unreasonable to the consumer can count) then the whole contract can be void and in effect worthless.

People are free in the US, Canada and the UK to enter into unfair contracts as long as there is no fraud, misrepresentation or undue distress. Look it up if you don't believe me. Unfair contracts are quite often enforced by the court. "Fairness" is not the relevant test. Many people wish it was true, especially when they mistakenly sell property for far under market value.

Further it's not just about the contract it's about consumer law and protection, Ie you can't over rule statutory obligations through a contract.

Not true. It depends on the statute. Some statutes can, in fact, be specifically contracted out of and the courts have upheld those contracts -- in the UK (which is where we derive our law). Again, look it up if you don't believe. For instance, you can sell products "as is" with no warranty or express or implied representations that they will be fit for their intended purpose. This is against the Sale of Goods Act which most jurisdictions have, and which implies fitness for the intended purpose.

No one would be able to sell defective products for repair or other purposes if your view of the law was correct.

All said, it doesn't matter what we speculate or believe, if it goes to court, it will be the courts view that matters.

No dispute there. But it is fun to speculate.

 

[Andyw2100]

I don't follow you. I don't think anyone needs to go to the Model S website to determine if a Model S has four wheels. But this is about hp so let's stick to that issue. If you didn't get the hp you wanted or were told, or what was stated on the website, then you needed to ensure that the hp was in the contract before you signed it because you specifically agreed that "Prior agreements, oral statements, negotiations, communications or representations about the Vehicle sold under this Agreement are superseded by this Agreement. Terms relating to the purchase not expressly contained herein are not binding." Tesla will likely argue the parol evidence rule along with the allegation that the car does, in fact, have the hp motor number on the website, and the judge can fall back on parol evidence if he/she wants. That's all I am saying. I have no idea how this will all, in fact, play out in court, if it ever gets there. No one can ever predict what will happen in Court. Appeal courts overrule lower courts so even with a judgment it's not certain until appeals are exhausted, abandoned or not pursued.

The point I was trying to make was that if a court determined that Tesla, in drawing up the sales agreement (contract) left out too many specifics of the car (illustrated with my wheels example, which may have been a bad example, so ignore that), the court could rule that as the party that drew up the contract, those specifics should be considered. That would apply directly to your point that the HP is not listed as one of the specifications in the sales agreement, and thus is one that can be changed.

I don't know if a court would rule that way or not, of course. I was merely presenting that as a possibility.

 

[JonG]

People are free in the US, Canada and the UK to enter into unfair contracts as long as there is no fraud, misrepresentation or undue distress. Look it up if you don't believe me. Unfair contracts are quite often enforced by the court. "Fairness" is not the relevant test. Many people wish it was true, especially when they mistakenly sell property for far under market value.



Not true. It depends on the statute. Some statutes can, in fact, be specifically contracted out of and the courts have upheld those contracts -- in the UK (which is where we derive our law). Again, look it up if you don't believe. For instance, you can sell products "as is" with no warranty or express or implied representations that they will be fit for their intended purpose. This is against the Sale of Goods Act which most jurisdictions have, and which implies fitness for the intended purpose.

No one would be able to sell defective products for repair or other purposes if your view of the law was correct.



No dispute there. But it is fun to speculate.

You are incorrect at least with respect to the uk if we're talking about the same thing.

For instance if I bought a used car from a dealer that said 'sold as seen' then that would be unfair as a dealer has to ensure it is road worthy and if the car had certain faults I would have recourse. I can buy something like a tv with a 1 year guarantee but I actually have longer if the goods were no fit to withstand reasonable wear, the burden of proof changes but it's still a right. This is one of the reasons car warranties became longer. You can't just add some small print to a contract and expect a consumer to be able to understand every aspect and it's unreasonable that they should take legal advice. Courts therefore determine that a contract needs to be fair and if ANY term in deemed unfair the contract can be deemed invalid. Even business to business contracts need to be fair, the most common aspect is limit of liability which if set too low can be a problem.

You mention statute - I'm referring to English law but I'd be surprised if it was materially different

 

[Canuck]

Courts therefore determine that a contract needs to be fair and if ANY term in deemed unfair the contract can be deemed invalid. Even business to business contracts need to be fair, the most common aspect is limit of liability which if set too low can be a problem.

You mention statute - I'm referring to English law but I'd be surprised if it was materially different

The English common-law tradition is the basis for our laws in Canada. Our judges often cite your "House of Lords" decisions in our case-law. My problem with your comments is that you make sweeping generalized allegations about the law that are simply not true. However, within your comments, there is some truth.

Take a read through this and you will understand where you are right, and where you go overboard with your "fairness" position:

Unfair terms - common law

Unfair Contract Terms Act and Consumer Regulations

You can't just add some small print to a contract and expect a consumer to be able to understand every aspect and it's unreasonable that they should take legal advice.

I see. So any term in a contract that I signed but do not understand is not enforceable against me unless I have sought legal advice? Interesting position to say the least.

 

[stopcrazypp]

You are incorrect at least with respect to the uk if we're talking about the same thing.

For instance if I bought a used car from a dealer that said 'sold as seen' then that would be unfair as a dealer has to ensure it is road worthy and if the car had certain faults I would have recourse. I can buy something like a tv with a 1 year guarantee but I actually have longer if the goods were no fit to withstand reasonable wear, the burden of proof changes but it's still a right. This is one of the reasons car warranties became longer. You can't just add some small print to a contract and expect a consumer to be able to understand every aspect and it's unreasonable that they should take legal advice. Courts therefore determine that a contract needs to be fair and if ANY term in deemed unfair the contract can be deemed invalid. Even business to business contracts need to be fair, the most common aspect is limit of liability which if set too low can be a problem.

You mention statute - I'm referring to English law but I'd be surprised if it was materially different

According to this article, in the UK "sold as seen" is not allowed for a car dealer or trader (aka online car dealer), but is allowed for private party and auction houses. The latter cases would be "unfair" in your definition, but it is allowed.
http://www.consumeruk.co.uk/31.asp

Similarly the criteria for the dealer or trader to satisfy is only that the vehicle matches its intended use and is reasonably reliable (this is similar to lemon laws here, except it seems it applies for used cars in the UK too). I doubt the horsepower (past some certain minimum threshold to qualify as a road legal vehicle) is included in it.

 

[P85DEE]

All of this legal talk, and talk of rights, and "fairness", is beginning to make me wonder if ultimately someone in here will sue Tesla for "pain and suffering", "loss of consortium" (clearly the revelation that one all of a sudden does not have "691 horsepower" after Elon said so on Austrailian 60 Minutes, but instead has "691 horsepower motor power", would result in a diminished testosterone level, and of course all disadvantages and side effects which would go along with that), as well as "emotional duress" over this entire horsepower matter, and demand that Tesla provide them with a new car, every year, for life.

 

[Canuck]

All of this legal talk, and talk of rights, and "fairness", is beginning to make me wonder if ultimately someone in here will sue Tesla for "pain and suffering", "loss of consortium", and "emotional duress" over this entire horsepower matter, and demand that Tesla provide them with a new car, every year, for life.

Oh no, I think this thread is now going here...

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[P85DEE]

Oh no, I think this thread is now going here...

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I challenge anyone in here to explain the difference.

 

[Krugerrand]

I challenge anyone in here to explain the difference.

Did you really have to encourage the continuation of this thread? :frown:

 

[P85DEE]

Did you really have to encourage the continuation of this thread? :frown:

Yeah, I know where you're headed, , I really cannot argue with you, and I sort of feel bad doing so.......but knowing what you know about this particular topic, do you really think that this thread would die on it's own?

If I were 100% confident that it would, well then I wouldn't add another post to it.

However, if you want to see if it will die on it's own, well then I'm with you, and I understand and hope that you are right more than you know. If your position is that we need to give it a chance to die the unceremonious death that it deserves, I understand. I won't put another post up in it unless someone else does and I feel compelled to respond.