-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Lemon Model S owner Rebuttal to Tesla's Blog Post
- Thread starter montgom626
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Model S
Al Sherman
It's about THIS car.
Sadly, this may just be a cost of doing business. The laws designed to protect consumers will always be used by unethical lawyers and their clients. I have no doubt that this is a "hobby" for montgom626. It surely wont be the last time he does it. I have no doubt that it was planned from the beginning. These type of people will always be out there.
lolachampcar
Well-Known Member
Yes, but if anyone is going to step up and attempt to prove a pattern of behavior my money is on Tesla. Musk knows better than most that rewarding bad behavior invites copy cats.
JJR64
28680
There is no wondering about it. They were sent snail mail and spaced out so Tesla would have no time to develop a response. All part of the plan.
Yep. I would think a serious person would send important documents overnight FedEx or UPS in a time sensitive manner and not 2-3 day USPS with tracking. At least he did spend the extra $3 to track his letters. Maybe he did overnight them with USPS but somehow I doubt it. His goal was to much them together so they arrive close together and not give Tesla time. Also, he made no mention of where he sent them to Telsa. He could have sent them to the online merchandise department where it takes someone time to figure out what it is doing there and re-route it. I would think you would send it to your service department, call them and maybe even call ownership to let them know what you are doing.
Watched some of the video, but don't see what you're talking about. Anyway, we have some corroboration up thread that the door handle problem was real.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
I think you're confused.. there's nothing in that video that even remotely resembles the Lemon Law claims or how they "faked" it. How they "faked" it was very simple. The doors were locked and would not "present" until someone off-screen unlocked the doors with the key fob (flashing the brake lights) THEN the handles retracted.
I have been a Lemon Law arbitrator for 14 years. I have no opinion on this particular case, and if there's one thing I've learned in all of this time, it's that my opinion often changes drastically between when I read all of the material before the hearing and after seeing the evidence and witnesses at the hearing, so I would never jump to any conclusions before a case is complete. I've probably done close to 200 cases.
What I *can* tell you is that Wisconsin's Lemon Law is similar to Florida (where I arbitrate). In terms of whether or not the vehicle meets the Standard for "reasonable number of repair attempts", if it has been out of service for reason of repair for eligible nonconformities for 30 days or more, it is considered to meet that Standard. Incidentally, here in Florida we have much more latitude to determine whether or not it meets the Standard. The number of days is the same, but the number is more of a guideline than a rule. The 30 day rule is one of two ways to qualify to meet the Standard, but if it's been in service that long it's much easier to meet, because it qualifies even if the manufacturer fixed each and every eligible nonconformity. It can certainly come into play whether or not a problem is an eligible nonconformity. In simple terms, the problem must be with a part that is covered under the warranty, and it has to be a substantial impairment to use, value, OR safety of the vehicle. Of course the problems have to have really existed.
So I would say that although Wisconsin's Lemon Law is a bit more manufacturer-friendly than Florida's, it is still a pretty low bar for a car to be considered a "lemon" and be eligible for repurchase or replacement.
I haven't read the whole thread, but wanted to give the facts of the law as I understand them as a Lemon Law arbitrator. I can certainly answer any additional questions regarding that.
What I *can* tell you is that Wisconsin's Lemon Law is similar to Florida (where I arbitrate). In terms of whether or not the vehicle meets the Standard for "reasonable number of repair attempts", if it has been out of service for reason of repair for eligible nonconformities for 30 days or more, it is considered to meet that Standard. Incidentally, here in Florida we have much more latitude to determine whether or not it meets the Standard. The number of days is the same, but the number is more of a guideline than a rule. The 30 day rule is one of two ways to qualify to meet the Standard, but if it's been in service that long it's much easier to meet, because it qualifies even if the manufacturer fixed each and every eligible nonconformity. It can certainly come into play whether or not a problem is an eligible nonconformity. In simple terms, the problem must be with a part that is covered under the warranty, and it has to be a substantial impairment to use, value, OR safety of the vehicle. Of course the problems have to have really existed.
So I would say that although Wisconsin's Lemon Law is a bit more manufacturer-friendly than Florida's, it is still a pretty low bar for a car to be considered a "lemon" and be eligible for repurchase or replacement.
I haven't read the whole thread, but wanted to give the facts of the law as I understand them as a Lemon Law arbitrator. I can certainly answer any additional questions regarding that.
Just getting through the thread now. I think your assumptions about the intent of the Lemon Law are wrong. It's a common misconception that the car has to essentially be unusable to qualify as a "lemon". Remember, the problems only have to be a substantial impairment to the use, safety, OR value of the vehicle. You could make an argument that having to jiggle a key to open a door is a substantial impairment to value (you could also argue that it is not). When you go to sell that Corolla, can you imagine that it could cost you substantially if the buyer sees that? Of course a 2010 car will not fall under the Lemon Law anyway. Each situation is different. One could find a jiggly key is an eligible nonconformity for one owner and not for another.
But the door handles while not popping open when you walk up to the car (but they do when you click the key fob just like a traditional car) shouldn't qualify as a substantial impairment to use, should it? It sucks and should be fixed if it existed but you can still use the car. It's actually quicker than walking up next to the car anyway so if a supposed attacking is rushing at you like allegedly happened in this case you wouldn't want the 'cool' way to open the doors anyway.
A Porche guy is getting some attention with his 'lemon' video.This is on the front page of digg this morning (yeh, I kinda dig the new Digg...)
DON'T BUY PORCHES APPARENTLY
http://digg.com/video/porsche-911-991-issues-update
I wonder if this guy would by a Tesla if he got his money back...
DON'T BUY PORCHES APPARENTLY
This Man's Porsche Is A Total Disaster
http://digg.com/video/porsche-911-991-issues-update
I wonder if this guy would by a Tesla if he got his money back...
aviators99 - have you run into cases where the complaintant manufactured faults and/or committed fraud to win a lemon lawsuit? And does Florida give you more than just the purchase price back? Sounds like there is a payday with Wisconsin.
@aviators99,
In fighting a lemon claim, would Tesla be allowed to use the claimant's other lemon suit against Volvo as evidence to discredit the claimant/plaintiff? Or would that not be admissible? It would seem that in this case, Tesla has the software logs to backup its claim that there were no issues and their service centers have not been able to reproduce any of these issues. On the surface, it seems to come down to the claimant's word against Tesla's logs and service history. Which is stronger, and do lemon claims generally side with the consumer?
In fighting a lemon claim, would Tesla be allowed to use the claimant's other lemon suit against Volvo as evidence to discredit the claimant/plaintiff? Or would that not be admissible? It would seem that in this case, Tesla has the software logs to backup its claim that there were no issues and their service centers have not been able to reproduce any of these issues. On the surface, it seems to come down to the claimant's word against Tesla's logs and service history. Which is stronger, and do lemon claims generally side with the consumer?
The link doesn't work. But isn't it pretty normal to sue, and then offer a settlement?
- - - Updated - - -
Hmm... was able to search for the article, and seems to be the same link:
Franklin doctor makes public settlement offer to Tesla in lemon law case - JSOnline
Not sure why it didn't work when I copy-pasted the URL.
If I were Tesla I would take them up on that offer. If Megna's description is correct (and that list seems an unlikely thing to lie about, given Tesla would have records), it seems like it is a genuine lemon complaint. There are too many faults there for reasonable customers. YES it was a beta-class vehicle when it came out and it could be argued that people knew that when buying into these early vehicles, but that doesn't absolve Tesla of responsibility.
I would offer the 108K for the car in full. Not the atty's fees, and not budge on the non-disclosure agreement, then ask that he agree not purchase or own any Tesla product in the future.
edit.......
The last thing an anesthesiologist wants is to be held up in a court battle for weeks. It would cost him likely more than the car and his attorney's fees.
edit.......
The last thing an anesthesiologist wants is to be held up in a court battle for weeks. It would cost him likely more than the car and his attorney's fees.
Last edited:
