Tesla bans Stewart Alsop from buying Model X

[Haggy]

I don't think Elon owes him an apology. Tesla does not owe him or anyone a car either. It happens every day an unruly customer is asked to leave a business establishment because he is no longer a desirable customer. The reservation agreement we signed with Tesla stipulates either party can cancel it at will. Seems that you have canceled yours without an issue so why can't Tesla?

It's not a question of whether they can but of whether they should. The public at large doesn't read this forum. We can debate it all day long, but that has nothing to do with public perception. It's bad press for Tesla. Musk doesn't have to take this guy's calls, and chances are the cost to the company would be minimal in terms of their need to satisfy him as a customer compared to satisfying anybody else. He's no less likely to be critical of the company because they canceled his order. It's the opposite. Musk could have just gotten off the phone and said he had nothing further to discuss, but instead went out of his way to cancel the order. Literally, it took effort on his part that wasn't needed and he could have spent his time on more important things. It also meant that he followed up and tried to defend himself and Tesla of Twitter, which didn't help him much either.

Even if 99% of people agreed with Musk, that wouldn't make it any more likely that those 99% would buy a car. The one percent would still be detrimental. But it's nowhere near something that 99% agree with. If most people agreed with Musk, it wouldn't have been newsworthy. The only reason it became news is that people saw a problem with it. That doesn't help me as an owner or as a stockholder. The public at large will see that Tesla canceled an order because a potential customer had the nerve to complain. Most who were familiar with the X launch read about it after the event and weren't affected by nor were they aware of the problems with the event. All this did was draw attention to them, and show that the criticism was factual. To put it another way, the only thing that Tesla did by canceling the order was to draw attention to mistakes it made with the launch, and that they won't tolerate criticism.

This did draw attention to the way Musk makes business decisions, and as business decisions go, this wasn't a good one. Tesla would have made more money selling the vehicle than not selling it, which means that Musk is putting personality ahead of business, and is being capricious. Even people who agree that Musk is a genius often question his business acumen or whether he can run a viable company or make it profitable. This won't help his reputation at all.

- - - Updated - - -

But at the end of the day, Elon is being Elon. And isn't that why we like him so much? lol

I don't want to risk answering a rhetorical question, let alone in a contradictory way.

 

[drinkerofkoolaid]

Any guesses what the Tweet about Stewart Alsop being investigated by the IRS is about? Are they being sarcastic or am I missing something?

 

[Tam]

... If a customer is abusive

You cannot legally deny a customer based on your moral necessity. There are many things that are morally wrong but many of those are protected under the US laws.

There is a difference in writing a blog demanding a full meal VS physically pulling on a tie of an usher, compromising the airway, blocking the traffic on the walkway, cursing and shouting loudly demanding a dinner.

There lies the issue.

How do you define a customer "abusive or super rude"?

Do you base that classification on "abusive or super rude" words written on internet blogs?

Free speech is not protected in China. Over there, your writings can come back and haunt you thanks to the very efficient systemic monitoring and censorship.

However, "abusive and super rude" words are protected free speech in the US.

I don't think a company can legally retaliate by refusing service citing super rude or abusive words that are protected under the United States Constitution First Amendment.

 

[McRat]

You cannot legally deny a customer based on your moral necessity. There are many things that are morally wrong but many of those are protected under the US laws.

There is a difference in writing a blog demanding a full meal VS physically pulling on a tie of an usher, compromising the airway, cursing shouting loudly demanding a dinner.

There lies the issue.

How do you define a customer "abusive or super rude"?

Do you base that classification on "abusive or super rude" words written on internet blogs?

Free speech is not protected in China. Over there, your writings can come back and haunt you thanks to the very efficient systemic monitoring and censorship.

However, "abusive and super rude" words are protected free speech in the US.

I don't think a company can legally retaliate by refusing service citing super rude or abusive words that are protected under the United States Constitution First Amendment.

Well, at least in California, if a customer is troublesome, I can back out of a PO contractually. You see it all the time. You order something, and get a notice they are not going to be able to deliver.

For me, it's a "due to unforeseen" email, or a verbal. Sometimes, you as a vendor, do it as part of negotiations prior to work. Other times, it's after a completing a project, and realizing other customer's projects are more profitable due to the overhead of babysitting them.

Yeah, you call us 4 times, asking when the work will be finished BEFORE you shipped us the eng'g info, PO, or even the parts. How can we answer that? One customer pulling that nonsense even sent me a memo indicating our Timeliness was unacceptable, and wanted a formal document how we are going to speed up future jobs. HOW ABOUT SENDING US THE WORK BEFORE THE DEADLINE EXPIRES?? You fire them, then if a high level manager calls to negotiate, we can reinstate them.

 

[bonnie]

You cannot legally deny a customer based on your moral necessity. There are many things that are morally wrong but many of those are protected under the US laws.

There is a difference in writing a blog demanding a full meal VS physically pulling on a tie of an usher, compromising the airway, blocking the traffic on the walkway, cursing and shouting loudly demanding a dinner.

There lies the issue.

How do you define a customer "abusive or super rude"?

Do you base that classification on "abusive or super rude" words written on internet blogs?

Free speech is not protected in China. Over there, your writings can come back and haunt you thanks to the very efficient systemic monitoring and censorship.

However, "abusive and super rude" words are protected free speech in the US.

I don't think a company can legally retaliate by refusing service citing super rude or abusive words that are protected under the United States Constitution First Amendment.

You're kidding, right? You're claiming that being abusive and rude is protected under free speech?

All free speech means is the government can't arrest you for being abusive, rude, or whatever. Companies are free to decide not to do business with you if you're a jerk.

And that's a purely subjective call. I think someone is a jerk, I don't need to do business with them.

 

[4SUPER9]

You cannot legally deny a customer based on your moral necessity. There are many things that are morally wrong but many of those are protected under the US laws.

There is a difference in writing a blog demanding a full meal VS physically pulling on a tie of an usher, compromising the airway, blocking the traffic on the walkway, cursing and shouting loudly demanding a dinner.

There lies the issue.

How do you define a customer "abusive or super rude"?

Do you base that classification on "abusive or super rude" words written on internet blogs?

Free speech is not protected in China. Over there, your writings can come back and haunt you thanks to the very efficient systemic monitoring and censorship.

However, "abusive and super rude" words are protected free speech in the US.

I don't think a company can legally retaliate by refusing service citing super rude or abusive words that are protected under the United States Constitution First Amendment.

You can legally deny a customer for any reason, or no reason at all, provided that it is not due to the customer being part of a protected class. For example, I cannot decline you because of race, gender, religion, age, etc. However, I can choose to not do business with you if you are a Carolina Panthers fan. Likewise, personality and speech are not protected classes. You have a right to be who you are, and say what you want, but can't demand equal treatment for those things.

Also, you cannot deny a customer services if they have no alternative and the service is necessary. Southern California Edison cannot decline a customer electricity for any reason, as long as the customer is paying. EMTALA states that an Emergency Department/hospital cannot turn away a patient in medical need, regardless of ability to pay. Being the best electric car option out there is not sufficient. They can choose to buy a different car. Many other choices actually, just none as great as a Tesla!

 

[Tam]

if a customer is troublesome, I can back out of a PO contractually.

Yes, you can. But usually, you fire a customer quietly and you don't go to Twitter to attract scholars of First Amendment to the United States Constitution to scrutinize on your practice.


Another scenario is suppose there's a world renown Preacher who has been very vocal against cars which displeases the car industry.

But then the preacher comes to your car company to buy a car which is a complete hypocrisy.

Can you legally deny selling the preacher the car because:

1) Moral necessity: you want to save him from hell

2) Retaliation: because he has done lots of damage by being so vocal against cars.

The answer is no, you cannot retaliate and no, you cannot base on your own morality.

What counts is: is it legal? Is it legal for him to be vocal against cars? Is it legal for him to bring you money to purchase a car from you?

 

[ankitmishra]

This guy used inappropriate language against Elon. Why should be Elon ashamed? He is the last person on earth that should be feeling ashamed. In my opinion, its okay to fire this kind of customer who throws tantrum and crosses lines because an event started late. No one at Tesla owes anything to anyone, if you can't be civil in dealing with people at Tesla, they don't want to deal with you. As simple as that. And please, analogies are not always a good to put your point across. Even the meaning of simplest words differs from person to person, let alone a hypothetical scenario. (My humble opinion).

 

[CarlK]

Yes, you can. But usually, you fire a customer quietly and you don't go to Twitter to attract scholars of First Amendment to the United States Constitution to scrutinize on your practice.


Another scenario is suppose there's a world renown Preacher who has been very vocal against cars which displeases the car industry.

But then the preacher comes to your car company to buy a car which is a complete hypocrisy.

Can you legally deny selling the preacher the car because:

1) Moral necessity: you want to save him from hell

2) Retaliation: because he has done lots of damage by being so vocal against cars.

The answer is no, you cannot retaliate and no, you cannot base on your own morality.

What counts is: is it legal? Is it legal for him to be vocal against cars? Is it legal for him to bring you money to purchase a car from you?

You got it all wrong. You can definitely refuse service for morality reasons long as the moral standard is not based on any of those protected characteristics, race, gender, national origin, religion, handicap, age.... You can refuse service to people wearing shorts but you need to be careful when you try to refuse service to people wearing headgear. In California where sex orientation is also a protected characteristic you can't refuse service to two persons of the same sex holding hands unless you also refuse service to any two persons holding hands in the store.

 

[dsm363]

Yes, you can. But usually, you fire a customer quietly and you don't go to Twitter to attract scholars of First Amendment to the United States Constitution to scrutinize on your practice.


Another scenario is suppose there's a world renown Preacher who has been very vocal against cars which displeases the car industry.

But then the preacher comes to your car company to buy a car which is a complete hypocrisy.

Can you legally deny selling the preacher the car because:

1) Moral necessity: you want to save him from hell

2) Retaliation: because he has done lots of damage by being so vocal against cars.

The answer is no, you cannot retaliate and no, you cannot base on your own morality.

What counts is: is it legal? Is it legal for him to be vocal against cars? Is it legal for him to bring you money to purchase a car from you?

Umm. What?

 

[bonnie]

Yes, you can. But usually, you fire a customer quietly and you don't go to Twitter to attract scholars of First Amendment to the United States Constitution to scrutinize on your practice.


Another scenario is suppose there's a world renown Preacher who has been very vocal against cars which displeases the car industry.

But then the preacher comes to your car company to buy a car which is a complete hypocrisy.

Can you legally deny selling the preacher the car because:

1) Moral necessity: you want to save him from hell

2) Retaliation: because he has done lots of damage by being so vocal against cars.

The answer is no, you cannot retaliate and no, you cannot base on your own morality.

What counts is: is it legal? Is it legal for him to be vocal against cars? Is it legal for him to bring you money to purchase a car from you?

 

[4SUPER9]

...The answer is no, you cannot retaliate and no, you cannot base on your own morality.

Sorry, Tam. You have this all wrong. Anyone can choose to do business with anyone they want for any reason, as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class. Even if the reason is for retaliation. Now, if that person is a "preacher" (as you stated), elderly, handicapped, etc., they can CLAIM that you discriminated against them for that reason. Then, it is a matter for the courts to decide whether there was inappropriate discrimination. That is a different discussion that what we are having. Or, maybe not? Are you saying that Alsop is in a protected class that prevents Musk from selling to him for that specific reason?

So, when is retaliation illegal? I'll give you an example. When an employee discovers that there is a safety violation and speaks publicly about it, and then the employer fires that employee, THAT is illegal. No such contract exsists between Musk and Alsop. Besides, if Alsop was an employee, and openly spoke poorly about Tesla, that is sufficient reason for termination, again, unless Alsop was reporting a concern about safety or impropriety. He was not. He was just being nasty.

 

[CarlK]

So, when is retaliation illegal? I'll give you an example. When an employee discovers that there is a safety violation and speaks publicly about it, and then the employer fires that employee, THAT is illegal. No such contract exsists between Musk and Alsop. Besides, if Alsop was an employee, and openly spoke poorly about Tesla, that is sufficient reason for termination, again, unless Alsop was reporting a concern about safety or impropriety. He was not. He was just being nasty.

Employers can not retaliate against employee who's relealing company's illegal misconducts. Otherwise the company can fire you if you tell your boss he's dumb or your boss thinks you're dumb.

 

[Auzie]

And I'm pretty sure I'm the Queen of England.

I thought Bonnie was the Queen

Happy to have 2 Queens

 

[Tam]

Anyone can choose to do business with anyone they want for any reason, as long as they do not discriminate against a protected class.

That sounds fair except in the following scenario:

It is well known that famous film critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel did a "thumbs down" on "Nuns on the Run."


They were then banned from FREE preview screenings from that show's owner and were quickly re-instated again.


Suppose if the pair would show up to a theater to BUY tickets to see that exact film and the theater's owner sensed that there's nothing good if this pair would see the film again. They might even trashed the film further on their TV shows and newspapers again.


I do not think it would be legal to retaliate against them in order to protect the business by banning them from paying their own way to theaters that run that "thumbs down" show.


They are protected because of the free speech even though that would damage the business when there would be a "thumbs down" review.

 

[SpiceWare]

They are protected because of the free speech

False. Freedom Of Speech does not mean Freedom From Consequences, it only means Freedom From Government Retaliation.

Back when I managed a KFC a customer started cussing out my cashier, yet she'd given him exactly what he'd ordered (I was out of sight, but within earshot and heard the entire transaction). While he was free to say what he said, the consequences were I kicked him out of the restaurant.

 

[bonnie]

View attachment 110597

I thought Bonnie was the Queen

Happy to have 2 Queens

Pretty sure I was told I was a princess. Krug is welcome to be Queen. That involves a lot more work.

 

[Merrill]

Pretty sure I was told I was a princess. Krug is welcome to be Queen. That involves a lot more work.

Princess it is and that is a good thing!

 

[Haggy]

You cannot legally deny a customer based on your moral necessity. There are many things that are morally wrong but many of those are protected under the US laws.

What happened in this case was there was a reservation and the terms allowed either party to cancel for any reason. He was not a "customer" in the sense of somebody who purchased a product. Had Tesla advertised the Model X on their web page with pricing information and refused to sell it, that could be false advertising. If he put down a deposit on line and committed to the order, it would be a lot harder for Tesla to get away with canceling the order. But it also would depend on what state he lives in. These things aren't dictated by federal law except to the extent that states adopt the UCC, or if there's some interstate commerce issue.

In general, a merchant who advertises a product (including displaying it for sale with a price) is obligated when a person accepts the terms of the contract, but not necessarily under contract law itself but under other laws related to advertising. A merchant can't get out of it by putting up a sign saying they reserve the right to refuse service any more than they can put up a sign that says they have the right to shoot customers at will. If it's illegal, they can't do it. But they can ask a customer to leave the store if he is causing a problem. There's no legal definition of what qualifies, but common sense should tell you whether a jury would likely agree.
If he showed up in a showroom screaming, and they didn't want to sell him a car, that could be seen as justifiable. In this case, he never actually ordered the car.

 

[4SUPER9]

That sounds fair except in the following scenario:

It is well known that famous film critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel did a "thumbs down" on "Nuns on the Run."


They were then banned from FREE preview screenings from that show's owner and were quickly re-instated again.


Suppose if the pair would show up to a theater to BUY tickets to see that exact film and the theater's owner sensed that there's nothing good if this pair would see the film again. They might even trashed the film further on their TV shows and newspapers again.


I do not think it would be legal to retaliate against them in order to protect the business by banning them from paying their own way to theaters that run that "thumbs down" show.


They are protected because of the free speech even though that would damage the business when there would be a "thumbs down" review.

Nope again. This would be completely legal. May note be good business sense, but it is legal. Are you starting to get it now?

--Addendum--
Actually, I just re-read your post. I stand my ground that this is legal. If an individual theater desires to ban them, they can, for ANY reason they want (except those protected classes several of us mentioned above). Let's be clear: this includes retaliation. If, however, the studio pressured an individually owned theater or chain to not let them in, and perhaps even threatened this theater chain that if they did let them in, they will no longer allow that theater to run their films, that would be illegal. Specifically, it would be a violation of the anti-trust act.