4 ms·
I 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.
by flyingfences 7y ago
I 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.