5 ms·

> Tesla owners should file a class action lawsuit to force Tesla to extend their warranty to cover this issue. Why is it Tesla's responsibility to fix the car

> Tesla owners should file a class action lawsuit to force Tesla to extend their warranty to cover this issue. Why is it Tesla's responsibility to fix the car out of warranty?

Marazan 7y ago
Because their design decision means this part is guaranteed to fail after an unreasonably short time.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  But isn't that the consumer's fault for agreeing to buy a car with "an unreasonably short" warranty? If Tesla said the warranty lasts however long, why would you feel entitled to legal protection for it to last longer? If you're saying this part is intentionally designed to fail shortly after the warranty expires, then I understand your point. Is that what you mean? EDIT: The way I see it is if I buy a car with a 3 year warranty and something fails after 4 years, it's not the manufacturer's responsibility to fix it because the warranty has expired. Why do you think it is?
  - Aloha 7y ago
    Auto manufacturers commonly do targeted warranty extensions and recalls for design and manufacturing defects outside of warranty. Ford for example did, with failing intake manifolds and the issue where the engine would eject spark plugs on Modular V8 engines. Tesla in particular is screwing over the people it needs the most, by making boneheaded component choices.
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      Fair point. I don't know why I had a mental block and the idea of a recall never entered into my mind. I completely agree Tesla cheaped out on this part, I just wasn't convinced they are responsible for fixing it. I'm still not sure this justifies a class action lawsuit (I don't really feel strongly one way or the other), but I at least understand why Tesla might be held accountable for their actions.
      - Aloha 7y ago
        Your argument is not totally unreasonable - but not within industry norms. Also Tesla is the manufacturer for electric cars in the public's eye, if they get a reputation for unreliability it will set the technology back decades. (see the Oldsmobile Diesel engine from the 80's) So for a variety of reasons, I'd argue they have a moral responsibility to fix it, INAL, so it's unknown to me if they have a legal or regulatory responsibility too.
        Marazan 7y ago
        <i> it's unknown to me if they have a legal or regulatory responsibility too</i> Depends on the regulatory environment. In the main though people can expect cars to last for a good long while with maintenance, so a part that was guaranteed to fail well before then no matter how good care the consumer took of it would be a regulatory no no.
      - tempestn 7y ago
        I think the length of the warranty is kind of a distraction. Say Teslas had a particularly generous 6-year full warranty, but this part was guaranteed to fail 100% of the time after 6.5 years and cost thousands to fix. People would be justifiably upset.
        OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        > People would be justifiably upset. You're talking about whether or not people should be upset. I'm talking about whether or not Tesla is legally responsible. These are orthogonal topics. Yes, people should be upset with Tesla for a shitty design. I don't think anyone is arguing that. I don't think that automatically means Tesla should get sued for it. Then again, I've never tried to sue an automaker. So maybe I'm just ignorant of how this is supposed to work.
        macintux 7y ago
        In a world of perfect information things would be different. If a consumer knew before purchase that a car was going to die shortly after the warranty ends, they wouldn’t have much of a case. But if Tesla cheaps out on critical items, thus dooming a car to that scenario, and a consumer can’t know that, it introduces a different legal dynamic. (Disclaimer: IANAL.)
  - Dayshine 7y ago
    > EDIT: The way I see it is if I buy a car with a 3 year warranty and something fails after 4 years, it's not the manufacturer's responsibility to fix it because the warranty has expired. Why do you think it is? The normal expected lifetime of a new car today is apparently 8 years or 150,000 miles. So I would expect the car to last 8 years on average. If a car is going to last significantly less than that on average (e.g. assuming this means the car needs a fix every 4 years), this should be disclosed in the marketing. "years" of warranty is a silly concept anyway. If I buy a new car then store it in a perfect environment unused for 20 years (assuming we maintain anything that isn't stable like oil), it should still work as if new. If it doesn't, it clearly wasn't sold fit for purpose.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    Many places recognize an “implied warranty” which holds manufacturers to some basic standards by law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty One might argue that this flash memory was not the correct choice for the purpose it was being used for, and as an expert, it’s was Tesla’s duty to select a part up to spec for the purpose it was being used for.
Narkov 7y ago
It is striking how different the attitude to this is in Australia. All products and services in Australia need to be fit for purpose. There's no strict definition for this but it basically means if you are selling a "premium" product, your warranty lasts for however long is reasonable in the eyes of the courts and not what the manufacturer says. It is very pro-consumer. It would be reasonable to assume that a $40k-$100k car would last 10+ years. Obviously this doesn't cover consumables but bad memory cards would definitely be covered.
- kube-system 7y ago
  US law also has a very similar provision https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-315 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-315

> Tesla owners should file a class action lawsuit to force Tesla to extend their warranty to cover this issue. Why is it Tesla's responsibility to fix the car out of warranty?

Marazan 7y ago

Because their design decision means this part is guaranteed to fail after an unreasonably short time.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
But isn't that the consumer's fault for agreeing to buy a car with "an unreasonably short" warranty? If Tesla said the warranty lasts however long, why would you feel entitled to legal protection for it to last longer? If you're saying this part is intentionally designed to fail shortly after the warranty expires, then I understand your point. Is that what you mean? EDIT: The way I see it is if I buy a car with a 3 year warranty and something fails after 4 years, it's not the manufacturer's responsibility to fix it because the warranty has expired. Why do you think it is?
- Aloha 7y ago
  Auto manufacturers commonly do targeted warranty extensions and recalls for design and manufacturing defects outside of warranty. Ford for example did, with failing intake manifolds and the issue where the engine would eject spark plugs on Modular V8 engines. Tesla in particular is screwing over the people it needs the most, by making boneheaded component choices.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    Fair point. I don't know why I had a mental block and the idea of a recall never entered into my mind. I completely agree Tesla cheaped out on this part, I just wasn't convinced they are responsible for fixing it. I'm still not sure this justifies a class action lawsuit (I don't really feel strongly one way or the other), but I at least understand why Tesla might be held accountable for their actions.
    - Aloha 7y ago
      Your argument is not totally unreasonable - but not within industry norms. Also Tesla is the manufacturer for electric cars in the public's eye, if they get a reputation for unreliability it will set the technology back decades. (see the Oldsmobile Diesel engine from the 80's) So for a variety of reasons, I'd argue they have a moral responsibility to fix it, INAL, so it's unknown to me if they have a legal or regulatory responsibility too.
      - Marazan 7y ago
        <i> it's unknown to me if they have a legal or regulatory responsibility too</i> Depends on the regulatory environment. In the main though people can expect cars to last for a good long while with maintenance, so a part that was guaranteed to fail well before then no matter how good care the consumer took of it would be a regulatory no no.
    - tempestn 7y ago
      I think the length of the warranty is kind of a distraction. Say Teslas had a particularly generous 6-year full warranty, but this part was guaranteed to fail 100% of the time after 6.5 years and cost thousands to fix. People would be justifiably upset.
      - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        > People would be justifiably upset. You're talking about whether or not people should be upset. I'm talking about whether or not Tesla is legally responsible. These are orthogonal topics. Yes, people should be upset with Tesla for a shitty design. I don't think anyone is arguing that. I don't think that automatically means Tesla should get sued for it. Then again, I've never tried to sue an automaker. So maybe I'm just ignorant of how this is supposed to work.
        macintux 7y ago
        In a world of perfect information things would be different. If a consumer knew before purchase that a car was going to die shortly after the warranty ends, they wouldn’t have much of a case. But if Tesla cheaps out on critical items, thus dooming a car to that scenario, and a consumer can’t know that, it introduces a different legal dynamic. (Disclaimer: IANAL.)
- Dayshine 7y ago
  > EDIT: The way I see it is if I buy a car with a 3 year warranty and something fails after 4 years, it's not the manufacturer's responsibility to fix it because the warranty has expired. Why do you think it is? The normal expected lifetime of a new car today is apparently 8 years or 150,000 miles. So I would expect the car to last 8 years on average. If a car is going to last significantly less than that on average (e.g. assuming this means the car needs a fix every 4 years), this should be disclosed in the marketing. "years" of warranty is a silly concept anyway. If I buy a new car then store it in a perfect environment unused for 20 years (assuming we maintain anything that isn't stable like oil), it should still work as if new. If it doesn't, it clearly wasn't sold fit for purpose.
- kube-system 7y ago
  Many places recognize an “implied warranty” which holds manufacturers to some basic standards by law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_warranty One might argue that this flash memory was not the correct choice for the purpose it was being used for, and as an expert, it’s was Tesla’s duty to select a part up to spec for the purpose it was being used for.

Narkov 7y ago

It is striking how different the attitude to this is in Australia. All products and services in Australia need to be fit for purpose. There's no strict definition for this but it basically means if you are selling a "premium" product, your warranty lasts for however long is reasonable in the eyes of the courts and not what the manufacturer says. It is very pro-consumer. It would be reasonable to assume that a $40k-$100k car would last 10+ years. Obviously this doesn't cover consumables but bad memory cards would definitely be covered.

kube-system 7y ago
US law also has a very similar provision https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-315 https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-315