6 ms·
> the end-user has no real control over End user has the same control as over any feature of the car. If you buy Tesla and then buy FSD and then sell that car
by kjksf 7y ago
> the end-user has no real control over
End user has the same control as over any feature of the car.
If you buy Tesla and then buy FSD and then sell that car to someone else, FSD stays with the car. It would be absurd if it worked any other way.
In this case, the car was sold back to Tesla, a dealer bought it from Tesla and sold it to someone. Tesla determined that the car was configured with FSD even though the user never paid for it.
Now it's a he said / she said situation.
The user got screwed because he lost FSD that he thought he had.
The question is: was he screwed by the dealer (who mis-represented availability of FSD) or was he screwed by Tesla (who mis-represented availability of FSD to the dealer). Or maybe the dealer misunderstood.
Either way, this should be straightforward to resolve.
The buyer should be made whole by the dealer, because dealer sold the car.
The dealer should be made whole by Tesla (if Tesla indeed misrepresented the car).
All parties have relevant documents so it should be clear who's responsible for what.
- cowsandmilk 7y ago> End user has the same control as over any feature of the car. If you buy Tesla and then buy FSD and then sell that car to someone else, FSD stays with the car. It would be absurd if it worked any other way. People are having FSD disappear from their cars and having to produce invoices showing they bought it in order to have it restored. How do you do that when you bought it used? https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/lost-fsd-earlier-this-week.156259/ https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/lost-fsd-earlier-thi...
- gumby 7y agoYou have misinterpreted what the article documents: > In this case, the car was sold back to Tesla, a dealer bought it from Tesla and sold it to someone. Tesla determined that the car was configured with FSD even though the user never paid for it. The dealer purchased the car from the manufacturer and the window sticker (required by law to be provided by the manufacturer to prevent dealer fraud) listed the “FSD” feature as included with the device. The purchaser bought it with the understanding that that list of features was correct. The dealer had no say in the matter either way. You don’t have to take my word for this: the Monroney sticker is actually in the linked article. Legally this is unambiguously fraud by the manufacturer.
- flyingfences 7y agoI agree with your analysis - the beuyer did pay for the feature, but there is one detail you got wrong: a manufacturer Monroney is only required for new cars.
- TheGrumpyBrit 7y agoI'm not familiar with US laws around these stickers, but that doesn't sound like a get out for Tesla. Not being legally required to provide a sticker doesn't (or shouldn't) change the fact that, if the manufacturer provides a sticker anyway, it must be accurate.
- rootusrootus 7y agoAgreed. It may not have the slam-dunk legal authority that a monroney sticker on a new car would have, but it is still documentation that shows features and a VIN, and including it in the car is tantamount to claiming that the car has these specifications. It was foolish of Tesla to include it.
- gumby 7y ago> It was foolish of Tesla to include it I think it was correct for Tesla to include it and I think their policy of non-transferable licenses is exploitative. Not legal in the EU but they can get away with that crap in the USA.
- ddalex 7y agoBut Tesla sold the car to the dealer as a NEW car, slightly defective, hence the sticker. The customer needs to go to the dealership and get their money back, and the dealership needs to go to Tesla and get their own money back
- rootusrootus 7y agoUnless I am woefully misinformed, Tesla is absolutely 100% not allowed to sell a lemon buyback as a new car. It's a used car, and on top of that it has to be disclosed as a lemon buyback.