6 ms·

I imagine it's legal because it's a deposit, and also because caveat emptor, i.e., people are free not to do business with them. If people want to deal with ran

I imagine it's legal because it's a deposit, and also because caveat emptor, i.e., people are free not to do business with them. If people want to deal with random bullshit, that's their personal decision. In general, "illegal" is a very high bar to clear for most behaviours, it's easier just to decide not to put up with that as a customer especially if you haven't lost anything yet.

wongarsu 6y ago
> people are free not to do business with them People aren't free not to do business with people they have contracts with. That's one of the major reasons to sign a contract.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  In America, they are of course free to not do business. The contract spells out the cost of doing so. In fact, this is the major purpose of contracts - specifying penalties for non-performance. It has to be a sum of money. A contract cannot compel any action - it is an agreement on what is expected and the cost of non-compliance.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > A contract cannot compel any action - it is an agreement on what is expected and the cost of non-compliance. Every part of this sentence before and after “it is an agreement on what is expected” is incorrect. A contract may lay out consequences of noncompliance, but it is contract law, not the terms of the contract that will set the actual consequences; those set in the contract are valid in only limited circumstances, and only then if their amount is appropriate under the law. And the manner of enforcement may be too compel performance of the obligations in the contract, see the remedy called “specific performance”.
    - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
      Not as I read it? A breach results in either damages or cancellation-and-restitution. Which is money either way. There is a little-used 'specific performance' case but that's for objects of art or whatnot, especially when no monetary value can be assigned. And in the overwhelming number of situations, should not be relied upon for remedy. Its cash (almost) all the way.
- conistonwater 6y ago
  The quote in the article clearly says they can get their deposit back in full, if I understood correctly. Not everything that's wrong is illegal. > You will receive an email in the next 1-2 days when your new agreement is ready for your review and acceptance before moving forward. If you are no longer interested in moving forward with Solar Roof, you can cancel your order by logging into your Tesla Account and your deposit will automatically be refunded.
  - Afforess 6y ago
    Breach of contract settlements are typically far more than the initial outlay. That's the whole purpose of contracts, agreeing on a future outcome in advance.
    - birdyrooster 6y ago
      Something something expectation damages
      - loceng 6y ago
        I'm genuinely curious what damages would occur in the US in situation like this? I don't imagine there will be much of a direct hit to Tesla, mostly as I imagine the solar panel contracts aren't stating specific dates of completion; image wise and indirect financial cost, Tesla may not suffer much either from this bad behaviour mostly as they're optimizing for scale and seemingly being cutthroat for their own efficiency. Afaik you have to have proof of damages, and I know in Canada at least you basically get nothing for emotional distress that may be caused - and in the US from what I know, mental pain and suffering can be a significant part of a settlement or ruling.
        toss1 6y ago
        IANAL, but I believe the term is "detrimental reliance". You relied on the representation of the other party that they agreed to X(written contract or not, written is easier to rove, but not essential), and then took actions based on the expectation of X. Costs might include hard materials & labor costs for preparing the site, your labor in preparing the site, lost income for time you spent, opportunity costs of not taking advantage of other opportunities (e.g., how much electricity costs you incurred by not putting in other panels instead of their contract), and emotional distress. The problem is going to be proving each and every one of those charges in court, in the face of both legitimate and bullsh*t arguments by Tesla's lawyers - and they will bring both types of arguments by the truckload. What Tesla is counting on is that it will almost always cost more to pursue the lawsuit than you will recover, so no one will step up and sue. They have scale, you don't. This is why class action lawsuits exist - so that all similarly situated plaintiffs can combine their actions into one, and pursue it with one firm. It would not surprise me that someone at a class-action firm is already examining these reports, taking notes, and making calls. Similarly, anyone with this problem should be contacting class action firms this morning.
- rjzzleep 6y ago
  In Germany this is actually illegal. It's so illegal that it makes online business a bit more complicated. Because you can't change an online agreement unless the client agrees.
  - mola 6y ago
    It's sad that it's not taken for granted that you can't change and agreement unilaterally. This "online economy" muddied the water enough so that basic terms like "agreement" lost their meaning. If we don't push back against this, we're heading to a world where servitude is taken for granted.
    - rjzzleep 6y ago
      It's actually one of the things that constantly amazes me about other online businesses. I'm still struggling with the fact that google wants to move my contract out of germany since I haven't been back since covid started. It refers to a section in the user agreement to object to it that I have not found.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    The way it should be. They should really legislate against the validity of these term change at whim.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    This is of course not specific to Germany, but the basis of contract law pretty much the world over.
  - xiphias2 6y ago
    It’s quite the opposite, online business in the EU is so much simpler, that I sign the contract and pay for the product online even if I go to the shop to take delivery of the product (and then have 14 days to return it). I guess ,,complicated’’ just depends on the viewpoint.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
There is truly no end to corporate apologists on HN.
- avereveard 6y ago
  imagine thinking breaching contract is illegal. I mean, the wording is shady, but exiting contracts isn't some end of the universe event, you pay whatever penalty are present for the contract termination and that's it. People are also free to sue for monetary damages incurred from having to pay upfront whatever work they had to do to prepare their roof, and again, doesn't make exiting a contract illegal. Parent is right in not jumping the shark and branding things names they aren't.
  - zeusk 6y ago
    breach of contract is not a criminal offense, but very likely to land you in a civil suit on the losing side.
    - avereveard 6y ago
      and? that's beyond the point being made. a tort gives the other party a legal liability, and still is not necessarily deriving form an illegal practice. heck, it's not even clear if it's actually a breach of contract since they were willing to return deposits etc.
  - Someone 6y ago
    So, you think breaching a contract isn’t illegal, yet people can go to court and win? What rules do you think courts use to make judgements?
    - avereveard 6y ago
      absolutely. court will do enforcement of the clauses and will apply remedies for damages if a tort is found. doesn't make breaching contract against the law, unless a law is violated while breaching the contract (i.e. fraud) so by contrast you think the ever given being late against their delivery contract is illegal?

wongarsu 6y ago

> people are free not to do business with them People aren't free not to do business with people they have contracts with. That's one of the major reasons to sign a contract.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
In America, they are of course free to not do business. The contract spells out the cost of doing so. In fact, this is the major purpose of contracts - specifying penalties for non-performance. It has to be a sum of money. A contract cannot compel any action - it is an agreement on what is expected and the cost of non-compliance.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > A contract cannot compel any action - it is an agreement on what is expected and the cost of non-compliance. Every part of this sentence before and after “it is an agreement on what is expected” is incorrect. A contract may lay out consequences of noncompliance, but it is contract law, not the terms of the contract that will set the actual consequences; those set in the contract are valid in only limited circumstances, and only then if their amount is appropriate under the law. And the manner of enforcement may be too compel performance of the obligations in the contract, see the remedy called “specific performance”.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Not as I read it? A breach results in either damages or cancellation-and-restitution. Which is money either way. There is a little-used 'specific performance' case but that's for objects of art or whatnot, especially when no monetary value can be assigned. And in the overwhelming number of situations, should not be relied upon for remedy. Its cash (almost) all the way.
conistonwater 6y ago
The quote in the article clearly says they can get their deposit back in full, if I understood correctly. Not everything that's wrong is illegal. > You will receive an email in the next 1-2 days when your new agreement is ready for your review and acceptance before moving forward. If you are no longer interested in moving forward with Solar Roof, you can cancel your order by logging into your Tesla Account and your deposit will automatically be refunded.
- Afforess 6y ago
  Breach of contract settlements are typically far more than the initial outlay. That's the whole purpose of contracts, agreeing on a future outcome in advance.
  - birdyrooster 6y ago
    Something something expectation damages
    - loceng 6y ago
      I'm genuinely curious what damages would occur in the US in situation like this? I don't imagine there will be much of a direct hit to Tesla, mostly as I imagine the solar panel contracts aren't stating specific dates of completion; image wise and indirect financial cost, Tesla may not suffer much either from this bad behaviour mostly as they're optimizing for scale and seemingly being cutthroat for their own efficiency. Afaik you have to have proof of damages, and I know in Canada at least you basically get nothing for emotional distress that may be caused - and in the US from what I know, mental pain and suffering can be a significant part of a settlement or ruling.
      - toss1 6y ago
        IANAL, but I believe the term is "detrimental reliance". You relied on the representation of the other party that they agreed to X(written contract or not, written is easier to rove, but not essential), and then took actions based on the expectation of X. Costs might include hard materials & labor costs for preparing the site, your labor in preparing the site, lost income for time you spent, opportunity costs of not taking advantage of other opportunities (e.g., how much electricity costs you incurred by not putting in other panels instead of their contract), and emotional distress. The problem is going to be proving each and every one of those charges in court, in the face of both legitimate and bullsh*t arguments by Tesla's lawyers - and they will bring both types of arguments by the truckload. What Tesla is counting on is that it will almost always cost more to pursue the lawsuit than you will recover, so no one will step up and sue. They have scale, you don't. This is why class action lawsuits exist - so that all similarly situated plaintiffs can combine their actions into one, and pursue it with one firm. It would not surprise me that someone at a class-action firm is already examining these reports, taking notes, and making calls. Similarly, anyone with this problem should be contacting class action firms this morning.
rjzzleep 6y ago
In Germany this is actually illegal. It's so illegal that it makes online business a bit more complicated. Because you can't change an online agreement unless the client agrees.
- mola 6y ago
  It's sad that it's not taken for granted that you can't change and agreement unilaterally. This "online economy" muddied the water enough so that basic terms like "agreement" lost their meaning. If we don't push back against this, we're heading to a world where servitude is taken for granted.
  - rjzzleep 6y ago
    It's actually one of the things that constantly amazes me about other online businesses. I'm still struggling with the fact that google wants to move my contract out of germany since I haven't been back since covid started. It refers to a section in the user agreement to object to it that I have not found.
- waheoo 6y ago
  The way it should be. They should really legislate against the validity of these term change at whim.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  This is of course not specific to Germany, but the basis of contract law pretty much the world over.
- xiphias2 6y ago
  It’s quite the opposite, online business in the EU is so much simpler, that I sign the contract and pay for the product online even if I go to the shop to take delivery of the product (and then have 14 days to return it). I guess ,,complicated’’ just depends on the viewpoint.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

There is truly no end to corporate apologists on HN.

avereveard 6y ago
imagine thinking breaching contract is illegal. I mean, the wording is shady, but exiting contracts isn't some end of the universe event, you pay whatever penalty are present for the contract termination and that's it. People are also free to sue for monetary damages incurred from having to pay upfront whatever work they had to do to prepare their roof, and again, doesn't make exiting a contract illegal. Parent is right in not jumping the shark and branding things names they aren't.
- zeusk 6y ago
  breach of contract is not a criminal offense, but very likely to land you in a civil suit on the losing side.
  - avereveard 6y ago
    and? that's beyond the point being made. a tort gives the other party a legal liability, and still is not necessarily deriving form an illegal practice. heck, it's not even clear if it's actually a breach of contract since they were willing to return deposits etc.
- Someone 6y ago
  So, you think breaching a contract isn’t illegal, yet people can go to court and win? What rules do you think courts use to make judgements?
  - avereveard 6y ago
    absolutely. court will do enforcement of the clauses and will apply remedies for damages if a tort is found. doesn't make breaching contract against the law, unless a law is violated while breaching the contract (i.e. fraud) so by contrast you think the ever given being late against their delivery contract is illegal?