they f**ked up Tesla locked a customer's car out of 1/3 of its battery capacity for a $4.5k ransom

[LAwLz]

4 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Take for example a painting. Let's say I've got an old painting I'm selling to you at a flea market. After some time you decide to put that painting up for sale on a public marketplace where I can see it. It just so happens that what you possess is some obscure but priceless painting by a very famous artist. I can see the price go up into the hundreds of thousands. Neither you nor I knew of its apparent real value when we made the original transaction at the flea market. Am I entitled to a share of the profits?

That is a very different situation because in your scenario the buyer and owner has different information about the product BEFORE the transaction happens.

In my example, and what happened in this news article, is that the seller and buyer both agreed on the transaction being one thing, and then afterwards it turned out the seller made a mistake that the buyer noticed. 

 

That is at the core of the issue here.

When both the buyer and seller agrees on a transaction, that is what both parties are entitled to. Nothing more and nothing less. If the seller makes a mistake and gives the buyer more, then the law should step in to protect the seller from being screwed over. This applies to both smaller sellers at for example a flea market, and larger sellers like Tesla.

 

 

If you want a better flea market example. Let's say I bought a hand-made bag at a flea market. Then once I had bought the bag and walked away, I noticed that the seller had dropped their wallet and it had fell into the bag I bought. Should I be allowed to keep it? Neither the seller nor I knew that the wallet was inside the bag I bought. I thought I bought the bag and the seller through they were only giving me the bag. That was the agreed upon transaction.

[leadeater]

Let's just throw out a slightly different but similar situation and lets see how opinions differ

 

1. Person A buys Tesla Model S 60 from Tesla
2. Person A pays to have battery upgraded to 90kwh after 5 years
3. Person A decides to sell car to Person B
4. Person B takes car in to Tesla Service Center for a standard service
5. Tesla software locks battery back to 60kwh
6. Person B complains to Tesla
7. Tesla says they have no record of the 90kwh upgrade
8. Person A either does not have record of purchase or cannot be contacted

Was Tesla in the right and/or legally allowed to software lock Person B's vehicle to 60kwh?

[Avocado Diaboli]

Just now, LAwLz said:

That is at the core of the issue here.

When both the buyer and seller agrees on a transaction, that is what both parties are entitled to. Nothing more and nothing less. 

But here's the thing: They did. The seller sold a car with a 90 kWh battery that operated as such and the buyer bought a car with a 90 kWh battery that operated as such. Both knew about this and agreed to the transaction. Tesla wasn't part of that transaction.

 

If I may correct my earlier example of the painting: You're an art collector and have a very valuable painting in your collection. You sell it to someone else who also knows of the value of the painting. You both agree to a transaction with a fairly high price. I was just the hapless previous owner who sold you that painting for $5 at a flea market. I'm Tesla in this example. I gave you something without knowing its true value. Do I get to go to the person you sold that painting to and demand money from them or take the painting back?

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

This is not the situation at all, lets get this issue abundantly straight because this is not the situation so you have to end this here now if you want to be talking about what actually happened and not something else in theoretical land.

 

3rd party unrelated entity came in and did something in your above example, so please do explain what legal right this 3rd party would have, far as I would understand totally zero.

 

Tesler was not the seller

Tesla were the sellers. They were the original sellers that under Swedish law would have been the victim of theft.

 

If this was in Sweden then I am fairly sure this would have been handled the same way the purchasing of stolen goods is handled.

The battery was in the eyes of Swedish law (IANAL) stolen goods. The original buyer did not pay for the battery he got and since he can't return it, it is classified as stolen goods. Just like the wallet in my examples would be classified as stolen goods if it was not returned to the rightful owner.

Since the current owner (who had his battery capacity locked) didn't know that he was buying stolen goods, he is most likely in the clear. The one in danger should be the original buyer. He knew that he had something he didn't pay for, but chose to sell it anyway.

[Needfuldoer]

Sounds like Owner #2 either forgot the story behind the battery "upgrade" (if Owner #1 told them about it), or omitted that detail when they sold to Owner #3.

 

Owner #3's mistake was bringing it back to Tesla. It was finally free from the Elon collective, but he just had to bring it back and get it re-assimilated.

 

7 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

If you buy a V6 Mustang but the PO told you it was a V8 is that on Ford or is this just Teslas fault because BiG cOmPaNy BaD?

Someone's V6 Mustang engine grenades, Ford replaces it under the powertrain warranty. They accidentally install a V8 instead of a V6. Owner #1 sells this V8 Mustang to Owner #2. Owner #2 somehow manages to not fishtail into a crowd of pedestrians for a few years and sells to Owner #3. Owner #3 brings the car to Ford for service. Ford takes the V8 out and puts in a V6 because "that's the engine this car is supposed to have". Owner #3 is pissed. Is that Ford's fault, or Owner #2's fault for not telling Owner #3 not to bring the car to Ford for service?

 

Should car manufacturers be able to enable and disable features on their products at their whim, even after years have passed and the car has changed hands multiple times? Or is that just something that should be expected and allowed for Tesla (and only Tesla), because Tesla?

 

Funny story: back in the 90s, my grandfather bought a van that was supposed to have a 5.9L V8. The purchase order said 5.9L V8. The VIN said 5.9L V8. The badges said V8. The VIN on the dashboard and door sticker matched the VIN on his title and the VIN on his sales order. He drives it home, thinking it's kind of a dog. He pops the engine cover off and what does he see?

 

A 3.9L V6.

 

He immediately drove it back to the dealership. It took him hours to convince them that the factory screwed up, and that he didn't do an engine swap in 45 minutes. That's the last new Chrysler product we ever bought.

 

4 hours ago, Birblover12 said:

Regardless, I'm just glad the dude got the issue reverted. Shame he had to resort to the Social Media Flaming approach to get it though.

Unfortunately, that seems like the only way to get Tesla to do the right thing. Just look at what Rich Rebuilds used to go through with them.

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Tesla were the sellers. They were the original sellers that under Swedish law would have been the victim of theft.

Sales agreements have terms of expiry so no, not true. Tesla was not the seller, prove using official documentation for the sale of the car from Person A to Person B that Tesla was the seller, you cannot so they are not.

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Let's just throw out a slightly different but similar situation and lets see how opinions differ

 

1. Person A buys Tesla Model S 60 from Tesla
2. Person A pays to have battery upgraded to 90kwh after 5 years
3. Person A decides to sell car to Person B
4. Person B takes car in to Tesla Service Center for a standard service
5. Tesla software locks battery back to 60kwh
6. Person B complains to Tesla
7. Tesla says they have no record of the 90kwh upgrade
8. Person A either does not have record of purchase or cannot be contacted

Was Tesla in the right and/or legally allowed to software lock Person B's vehicle to 60kwh?

That is a very different situation because Person A paid to have the battery upgraded.

I am not sure how the law would handle no party (Tesla or Person A) having valid proof of the transaction though.

 

Does anyone know how the US law handles these types of situations? I am sure there are plenty of cases like this where people claim stolen goods has been resold.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Sales agreements have terms of expiry so no, not true. Tesla was not the seller, prove using official documentation for the sale of the car from Person A to Person B that Tesla was the seller, you cannot so they are not.

In Swedish law it would probably count as the sale of stolen goods, just like it would in my previous examples as well.

There is no official documentation of the sale if the goods is stolen either. The lack of official documentation is not an issue. 

 

Person A sold a possession he was not entitled to own, because Tesla never sold it to him. Tesla sold person A something else and that is what he was entitled to.

 

I agree that Person B is the victim here, but the offender is Person A, not Tesla.

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That is a very different situation because Person A paid to have the battery upgraded.

No it isn't very different, Person A paid to have their battery replaced in this very story. They paid as part of the original sale and Tesla replaced the battery but made a mistake during that work, which again was paid for.

 

What Person A got was something they didn't ask or know they were getting until they got it, then simply didn't tell Tesla they made a mistake. So when is the statute of limitation for when Tesla can actually do something about it, legally? And can they do it after a transfer of ownership and after their manufacturer warranty has expired.

 

Like I said, this situation is far more complicated.

 

Doesn't matter how much Person A was in the wrong, this does not mean Tesla have a legal justification and right to do anything about it x days, months or years later. Surely like there is here a limitation of time a company/seller is allowed to deal with such an issue, once that is over then they have no right anymore.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It should be noted though that a major argument they used is that it was sold as a Model S 90, when in reality it was a Model S 60.

Irrelevant,  if anyone has a complaint or deserves compensation it is the buyer who bought an s60 because he was told it was an S90 (despite the fact it was optioned and ran as an S90 model).  Telsa have ZERO right to take away functionality of a vehicle that they did not sell him and made NO contract with.

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Actually, imagine a scenario like this.  Someone sells a house where the separated garage is on the right-of-way.  The original seller knows it's on a right-of-way but still sells the house as having a garage.  The house then gets resold, but now the buyer brings in the city to inspect for a fence.  City worker realizes the garage is on a right-of-way so they have it scheduled to be torn down.

Analogy does not work because the right of way is not an arbitrary boundary created buy the builder or developer of the house originally,  it is a government overlay/attribute.   In your analogy the buyer has a right to compensation from the seller for fraud, in this case the buyer got a product the does exactly what the seller said it does.   

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The fact is, the car should have been sold as a model S 60, not as a 90.  The only way it should have been sold as a Model S 90, was if the owner had purchased the addon of it being a 90.   Actually I'm curious, back in the day Tesla had enabled the extended range on a bunch of vehicles when I think a hurricane hit...I'm wondering if somehow that might have been when the issue happened (they didn't apply the revert to all vehicles).  Or it could be a warranty repair, who knows...but lets say if it's the former, I'd say it's well within the rights to remove it.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I'm against regulating things like "locking in functionality that is physically installed" because I still feel that most peoples arguments against it is the whole "I own it" mentality without the thought of what could come of it.  The part where I think should be regulated is that there should always be an out-right purchase option for a given feature

 

e.g. Having 2 SKU's means more cost, so lets say if the mandate was in place instead of heated seats installed and just charging those who use it, they instead now will just install heated seats in all and raise the base price (and guess what, that sort of already happened...Tesla announced heated seats are now the standard, and the the price got raised for the base).  Now those would have chosen not to have heated seats end up paying more because of it.

 

It was simply a car that had a bigger battery installed, telsa did the upgrade under warranty for a previous owner.   There was no theft, no fraud, If tesla want to charge for a bigger battery then they can damned well put a bigger battery in.  IF they want to sell a smaller version cheaper then they can put a smaller battery in.  What they should never do is artificially limit a privately owned car that is under no contract with them either by stint of service or sales agreement.   

 

Transport manufacturing has done this seamlessly for more than a decade now, it does not cost more to have more Sku's or options in a single model.  I know this because I have worked in the industry. 

 

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

In Sweden, Tesla would have quite a lot of legal ground to stand on actually, and I think the law makes sense.

 

Let's say I sold you my car. We both stand next to the car, shake hands, sign the papers and then say good bye. But, I notice that my wallet has slid out and is currently lying in the seat of the car.

Would you honestly say that the law should allow you to keep my wallet? I think the law should say that the wallet was obviously not part of the deal and thus I am allowed to take it back, even if it was accidentally in the car when you bought it. We both understand that the wallet was an accident and that I should get it back. You didn't buy my wallet or the contents of it, you bought the car based on the information and price I provided you with. 

 

Likewise, I am sure the original owner understood that him getting a 90kWh battery even though he only paid for a 60kWh battery was a mistake. But he chose to profit from the mistake in the same way you would have profited from just keeping my forgotten wallet.

 

Leaving your wallet in a car is not the same as Tesla installing a bigger battery and then not artificially limiting it.  The car was a private sale from one private citizen to another, the car was just a car with a bigger battery. 

 

As far as I am concerned, if a company sells/gives you something, they have no right to change it later  PERIOD.  Doing so in my book is exploitation at best and vandalism at worst.

 

 

 

 

[tikker]

3 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

Oh, actually you do own the gold bars, the FTC made this rule so scammers cannot send random stuff out to people then charge them for money.

 

It would be nice of you to.return the gold bars that you morally dont own, but nothing could really stop you from ditching morals and hug the gold bars.

 There's a big difference between getting unsollicited goods in the mail and someone accidentally leaving their property in the trunk. Legislation will probably vary per country, but we have laws that disallow you from doing this. Earlier the example of receiving a pallet of speakers instead of just one was given, but if a shop sends you more than you ordered you have to contact them and report it. You are not allowed to just keep the entire pallet under the guise of "I didn't ask for it". Valuable goods that you find also technically need to be reported, so in the context of gold bars you are also not allowed to keep them and should report them to the police so that the legal timer before the claim to ownership of the previous owner expires can start ticking.

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Let's just throw out a slightly different but similar situation and lets see how opinions differ

 

1. Person A buys Tesla Model S 60 from Tesla
2. Person A pays to have battery upgraded to 90kwh after 5 years
3. Person A decides to sell car to Person B
4. Person B takes car in to Tesla Service Center for a standard service
5. Tesla software locks battery back to 60kwh
6. Person B complains to Tesla
7. Tesla says they have no record of the 90kwh upgrade
8. Person A either does not have record of purchase or cannot be contacted

Was Tesla in the right and/or legally allowed to software lock Person B's vehicle to 60kwh?

In my mind technically yes for this example, since there is no record of the upgrade ever having taken place. I would assume/hope Tesla normally has record of said transaction, but if nobody has any record of the purchase being made doesn't that make it a bit of an unsolveable your word vs theirs? It would be reasonable to lock it if that's their MO for 60 kWh batteries if no record of the upgrade exists. On the other hand, if they forget to properly lock it down to 60 at the time of the repair then I am in favour of them taking the blame and leaving it be.

[Avocado Diaboli]

10 minutes ago, tikker said:

In my mind technically yes for this example, since there is no record of the upgrade ever having taken place. I would assume/hope Tesla normally has record of said transaction, but if nobody has any record of the purchase being made doesn't that make it a bit of an unsolveable your word vs theirs? It would be reasonable to lock it if that's their MO for 60 kWh batteries if no record of the upgrade exists. On the other hand, if they forget to properly lock it down to 60 at the time of the repair then I am in favour of them taking the blame and leaving it be.

But what if that upgrade wasn't done by Tesla at all? What if it's a 3rd party battery pack that the previous owner had installed to increase the capacity? Would people here still be in favor of Tesla noting the fact that this is an S 60 and should have a 60 kWh battery and locking the capacity the previous owner paid to have installed, just not through them? What all these examples come down to is Tesla meddling with someone else's property without notice or consent.

 

---

 

I feel like all these notions to present the mistake on behalf of Tesla as equivalent to theft and resale of stolen goods is indicative that even the people making these comparisons know deep down that there's not much merit to these arguments. It shows that you have to reach pretty far to get something with any semblance of traction. Neither the buyer nor the seller did anything illegal here and if you do the ship of Theseus thing of replacing individual steps in the transaction to try and examine who's really at fault, I can only conclude Tesla being the only one coming close to (or overstepping) the line of legality. And to paint the seller of the vehicle as a potential criminal selling stolen goods or somehow morally objectionable just seems silly to me. 

[Spotty]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Edit: I looked up the Swedish law and apparently you are not required to inform the seller. I think that is the morally right thing to do though and it can save you a lot of trouble. However, if the mistake is caught and the seller contacts you, you HAVE to give the product back if requested. If you refuse, and keep the product anyway then you are breaking the same law as if you just flat out stole something.

Australia has some similar laws. You are not required to pay for it if a company gives/sends you something by mistake. If you contact the business stating that you do not want the item then they are required to collect it (for example a manure company drops a truck load on your lawn that you didn't ask for they have to come back and collect it). The seller is able to collect the goods within a period of 3 months after you receive it, and you may not prevent them from recovering it. If the seller does not collect within 3 months you get to keep it.

The exception to this is if you receive something clearly not intended for you, such as receiving a package addressed to your neighbour and it gets delivered to your house by mistake. If you take other people's packages then that's obviously theft. But if it's addressed to you and you get the wrong thing, maybe another customers order, then you can keep it if the seller doesn't collect it. Presumably in that situation you would contact the seller to report that you didn't get what you ordered and notify them of their mistake.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

In a perfect world, I would say that Person A is held accountable and has to pay.

Dell made a mistake, yes, but as I said earlier we have laws in Sweden, which I think are very good, that states that if a mistake like this happens then you have to return the product. Person A should be held responsible for selling a product he didn't actually buy. Person A never bought a GTX 1080 and even though he has one, he didn't pay for it. He paid for a GTX 1060.

The problem with this logic is that by forcing Person A to pay for the more expensive product it opens the door for companies to intentionally send customers more expensive items than what they ordered, then force the customer to pay for it. That would be horrible and rife with abuse.

 

You also can't rely on Person A being aware that the GTX 1080 in the machine was not the GTX 1060 they ordered. Us on a tech forum would be able to recognise pretty quickly, but the average joe buying a PC from Dell might not even know what a GTX 1060 or 1080 is and even if they look and see that it is a 1080 they might not realise that it's different from a 1060. That's why it's up to the seller (in this case it would be Dell) to realise their mistake and take steps to remedy it by contacting the customer and informing them of their intent to collect the item(s).

 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Also just fyi if a car manufacture issues a recall notice for a vehicle for a fault they have no authority to seize the vehicle either, in fact in most situations you as the owner have the right to ignore a recall completely unless the issue makes the vehicle illegal to be on the road because it's no longer at warrant of fitness requirement (if your country has this, which most do).

This. My car was part of the Takarta airbag recall and I ignored the safety recall for about a year. The car manufacturer sent me a letter almost every week notifying me of the recall until I finally booked an appointment to have it fixed. They still need my consent to perform the repair, the manufacturer can't just show up at my house, tow my car to their service centre and perform the repairs needed for the recall.

 

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Let's say I sold you my car. We both stand next to the car, shake hands, sign the papers and then say good bye. But, I notice that my wallet has slid out and is currently lying in the seat of the car.

Would you honestly say that the law should allow you to keep my wallet? I think the law should say that the wallet was obviously not part of the deal and thus I am allowed to take it back, even if it was accidentally in the car when you bought it. We both understand that the wallet was an accident and that I should get it back. You didn't buy my wallet or the contents of it, you bought the car based on the information and price I provided you with. 

 

Likewise, I am sure the original owner understood that him getting a 90kWh battery even though he only paid for a 60kWh battery was a mistake. But he chose to profit from the mistake in the same way you would have profited from just keeping my forgotten wallet.

Your wallet is not a fundamental element of the vehicle you bought - the battery is. It's expected that when the car is sold it will include all of the fundamental essential parts for it to operate in the condition that it was sold as. You can't sell a car to somebody and then rip out the engine because you want to keep it (unless it is clearly stated in the sale contract that the engine would not be included in the vehicle).

 

Your wallet is not part of the car, and therefore not part of the sale when you sell the car. If a seller accidentally left personal belongings in the car when they sold it that were not listed as part of the sale then they could contact the buyer within a reasonable timeframe and notify the buyer that they will be collecting the goods. If those items were not specified in the sale of the vehicle the buyer can't prevent them from collecting those goods. If the buyer refused, the seller could enlist a sheriff to accompany them to collect the goods. If the buyer still prevents them from retrieving their property, or disposes or damages it, then the seller would have to take them to small claims court to attempt to recover the value of those lost assets, though there's always the chance the judge will throw it out and tell them to be more careful in the future - depending on the value of the goods lost and what expectation the buyer would be expected to have that the seller would want to reclaim those items. A reasonable person would expect that they would want to collect something like a laptop or wallet, but if it's your $2 air freshener or a Britney Spears CD that was left in the CD player that the buyer throws out when they take possession of the car then it wouldn't be reasonable to expect the seller to want to collect it.

[leadeater]

22 minutes ago, tikker said:

In my mind technically yes for this example

Ok, then explain why they have the right? Is it even their battery? What if it's a 3rd party battery? Now what? Tesla is software locking a battery that isn't even under their warranty anymore.

 

Quote

Model S
Model X    8 years or 150,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.

 

Quote

No, there is no lifetime warranty on a Tesla, but for some Model X and Model S vehicles delivered before 2020 with battery packs rated at 70 kWh or higher, there is an unlimited mileage warranty condition on the battery.

 

 

2013 + 8 = 2021

 

Current year 2022, seems like this vehicle would likely be past it's warranty therefore wtf is Tesla doing?!?!

 

If you cannot prove something is yours then you cannot take it away, Tesla stole 30kwh 

 

22 minutes ago, tikker said:

It would be reasonable to lock it if that's their

No, it would be reasonable for them to leave the hell alone something that is not theirs. This vehicle is not owned by Tesla, it is not their property.

 

I proclaim that I own @tikkervehicle, I am coming to collect. No I do not have proof I own it but you do not have proof I do not, suck it your car is mine now 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

The exception to this is if you receive something clearly not intended for you, such as receiving a package addressed to your neighbour and it gets delivered to your house by mistake. If you take other people's packages then that's obviously theft. But if it's addressed to you and you get the wrong thing, maybe another customers order, then you can keep it if the seller doesn't collect it. Presumably in that situation you would contact the seller to report that you didn't get what you ordered and notify them of their mistake.

 

I think the key word there is "if the seller doesn't contact you". In this particular case, they did.

Tesla said "hey, this car should not have this, so we are taking it back". 

 

You got the wrong order, and the seller contacted you. Instead of giving the item back, you sold it to someone else.

 

 

I guess a very important detail that I haven't considered in this story is when the mistaken happened and when it was corrected. If the battery had been the incorrect capacity for years then I think it is silly (although maybe or maybe not legal) to lock it down again. If it happened very recently and the issue was caught early then I think Tesla is more justified in locking it.

 

 

54 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I proclaim that I own @tikkervehicle, I am coming to collect. No I do not have proof I own it but you do not have proof I do not, suck it your car is mine now 

Isn't that kind of the argument you are making?

Nobody has any proof of ownership so we should just let whoever currently has it physically keep it.

 

 

 

Maybe I am more used to this because I work a lot with enterprise hardware and software.

In the enterprise space, it is not uncommon for hardware to be locked down through software. For example firewalls that can't use dedicated processors because they require a license. If we for some reason has access to a feature we didn't pay for and an auditor finds out, we either get fined or in a best case scenario, they disable the feature.

I see that situation as being exactly the same as what happened in this situation, except the incorrectly configured thing just so happened to have been sold again before the issue was caught.

[Spotty]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think the key word there is "if the seller doesn't contact you". In this particular case, they did.

Tesla said "hey, this car should not have this, so we are taking it back". 

 

You got the wrong order, and the seller contacted you. Instead of giving the item back, you sold it to someone else.

Tesla did not, to our knowledge, contact the original owner of the vehicle. If a seller accidentally provides a customer with something the customer is not entitled to, the seller must make a claim to recover it within a reasonable timeframe. Since this car has been sold twice since the battery was swapped it's unlikely that Tesla realised the mistake they made in any reasonable timeframe.

 

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I guess a very important detail that I haven't considered in this story is when the mistaken happened and when it was corrected. If the battery had been the incorrect capacity for years then I think it is silly (although maybe or maybe not legal) to lock it down again. If it happened very recently and the issue was caught early then I think Tesla is more justified in locking it.

The battery was swapped from the original owner, the current owner is the cars third owner. It's possible that the first owner had the battery replaced, sold the car and then the person who bought it immediately flipped it a week later, but that seems unlikely and doesn't match the info we have. The tweets state the battery was swapped "years ago" and that "years went by". The tweets also state that the current owner has owned the vehicle for "several months". From the info we have it seems more like Tesla made the mistake several years ago and it went unnoticed until the current owner took their car to a Tesla service centre, where presumably the details read off the cars computer system didn't match the details they had on file for the vehicle which alerted Tesla to the mistake. If that is the case then what if you purchased a battery from a non-Tesla service centre and it doesn't match Tesla's details they have stored for the car? Could Tesla just disable the battery completely if they want to since it's the "wrong" battery?

 

Here's the tweets which started this which provides a vague timeline:

 

I do somewhat agree that if it happened and Tesla realised their mistake almost immediately and contacted the owner of the vehicle within a reasonable time frame to change it - and asked for the customers consent to make the changes - then it might be a different story.

8 hours ago, Spotty said:

Tesla's technician screwed up and Tesla failed to rectify the issue until years later after the car had been sold twice. If it was the original owner and a week after installing the new battery they contacted the owner and said "Hey, there was an error made during your battery swap that unintentionally unlocked additional battery capacity. We've pushed a software update to fix then mistake" then that would be more reasonable and maybe you could argue Tesla's case.
[...]
Tesla should have at least contacted the current owner and got their approval to modify the vehicle before making any changes to the vehicle.
[...]

(click the arrow in top right corner to view full original comment)

 

[Avocado Diaboli]

19 minutes ago, Spotty said:

I do somewhat agree that if it happened and Tesla realised their mistake almost immediately and contacted the owner of the vehicle within a reasonable time frame to change it - and asked for the customers consent to make the changes - then it might be a different story.

I personally wouldn't agree with that. Tesla were already going to lose money on the replacement by even putting in a 90 kWh battery in order to fulfill the warranty. And that's only true if you want to believe that the prices of the cars aren't calculated with generous margins to account for eventual warranties. Remember, a warranty isn't a free replacement, you paid for that with the up front cost when you bought the car, distributed over the totality of all cars sold. Tesla aren't stupid, they know a non-zero number of cars will have issues and the price of these replacements is more than guaranteed part of their pricing strategy. So why be a dick about it and restrict the capacity instead of just unlocking it? It's not as if they're losing any additional money on that 90 kWh battery, they had to provide it "free of charge" either way.

[Spotty]

2 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

I personally wouldn't agree with that. Tesla were already going to lose money on the replacement by even putting in a 90 kWh battery in order to fulfill the warranty. And that's only true if you want to believe that the prices of the cars aren't calculated with generous margins to account for eventual warranties. Remember, a warranty isn't a free replacement, you paid for that with the up front cost when you bought the car. Tesla aren't stupid, they know a non-zero amount of cars will have issues and the price of these replacements is more than guaranteed part of their pricing strategy. So why be a dick about it and restrict the capacity instead of just unlocking it? It's not as if they're losing any additional money on that 90 kWh battery, they had to provide it "free of charge" either way.

I touched on this earlier, but I suspect they wouldn't want word getting out that everybody with a 60kWh battery can get a free upgrade to the 90kWh battery by getting the battery swapped under warranty, especially since a battery upgrade is (or was) a premium option Tesla provided for a fee.

 

3 hours ago, Spotty said:

The 60kWh battery was replaced by the first owner under warranty, however Tesla didn't have a 60kWh battery available to perform the repair as it was apparently not being produced at the time and instead provided an equivalent or better part to complete the repair with a 90kWh battery. It's a shitty thing to install a 90kWh battery and then limit it to 60kWh, but shitty or not Tesla would legally be within their right to do so as it would fulfil the equivalent requirement for the warranty repair. I can understand Tesla not wanting to give out free 90kWh battery upgrades as that might just encourage more people with 60kWh batteries to try and get them replace under warranty in the hopes of getting a free upgrade. But really if they don't want to be giving out 90kWh batteries they should have kept stock of or kept producing the 60kWh batteries for warranty repairs that they would have known they would have needed to provide, or just eat the cost of providing the more expensive 90kWh batteries which obviously they are prepared to do since they're installing them regardless.

[Avocado Diaboli]

Just now, Spotty said:

I touched on this earlier, but I suspect they wouldn't want word getting out that everybody with a 60kWh battery can get a free upgrade to the 90kWh battery by getting the battery swapped under warranty, especially since a battery upgrade is (or was) a premium option Tesla provided for a fee.

 

Sure, but it's not like this is something you can bank on as a customer, it's not an inherent entitlement. Any warranty replacements made during a period where the 60 kWh batteries weren't available are necessarily going to be 90 kWh batteries, so they're "losing" money on each of those replacements, regardless of the actual usable capacity. But that should be Tesla's problem to fix on their supply chain side, not the customer's. And I'm not sure how much any given customer could do to induce a warranty replacement of their battery in the first place without resorting to malicious manipulation, which Tesla are probably very quick to notice. 

[tikker]

 

1 hour ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

But what if that upgrade wasn't done by Tesla at all? What if it's a 3rd party battery pack that the previous owner had installed to increase the capacity? Would people here still be in favor of Tesla noting the fact that this is an S 60 and should have a 60 kWh battery and locking the capacity the previous owner paid to have installed, just not through them? What all these examples come down to is Tesla meddling with someone else's property without notice or consent.

 

---

 

I feel like all these notions to present the mistake on behalf of Tesla as equivalent to theft and resale of stolen goods is indicative that even the people making these comparisons know deep down that there's not much merit to these arguments. It shows that you have to reach pretty far to get something with any semblance of traction. Neither the buyer nor the seller did anything illegal here and if you do the ship of Theseus thing of replacing individual steps in the transaction to try and examine who's really at fault, I can only conclude Tesla being the only one coming close to (or overstepping) the line of legality. And to paint the seller of the vehicle as a potential criminal selling stolen goods or somehow morally objectionable just seems silly to me. 

 Yeah I did assume Tesla would be the one replacing the battery. I don't know if they allow 3rd party replacements/upgrades, so that could have been a wrong assumption. If it was a 3rd party that did it, then given the nature of the vehicle (lots of things done through software), Tesla should keep track of these things and said 3rd party should've informed Tesla or tell the user to inform Tesla about upgrading the battery.

 

I do think Tesla is at fault here and should eat it, but I also think this shows why it's so important to keep receipts and paperwork around for future reference. Given that the 60 kWh model is just a soft-locked 90 kwH model (which is its own separate discussion), in the absence of proof that a battery upgrade for the extra capacity was indeed purchased and authorised, the situation does support the claim that it should not have 90 kWh. However, that point of contest is between person A and Tesla, and not between you and Tesla since you didn't enter into a deal with them (to first order, I don't know about any subsequent service deals here).

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Ok, then explain why they have the right? Is it even their battery? What if it's a 3rd party battery? Now what? Tesla is software locking a battery that isn't even under their warranty anymore.

I assumed we were not talking about a 3rd party battery, that may have been my bad, it sounded like Tesla would have upgraded the battery to me. Outside warranty I also fully agree. My out-of-warranty experience generally is that I don't exist anymore, so that should work both ways.

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If you cannot prove something is yours then you cannot take it away, Tesla stole 30kwh 

But the example said there was no record of the upgrade and no proof of purchase, so nobody, neither Tesla nor buyer, can proof that the upgrade was obtained legitimately either. If person A should have informed Tesla, then it's clearly person A's fault, but if Tesla performed the upgrade (I can't find whether they allow 3rd parties) then it'd be pretty dumb of them not to keep record of it and my vote would go in favour of the buyer.

27 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I proclaim that I own @tikkervehicle, I am coming to collect. No I do not have proof I own it but you do not have proof I do not, suck it your car is mine now 

The example wasn't without proof though. Tesla could argue that 1) that model should have a 60 kWh capacity and 2) no record of the upgrade exists. On the other hand, no involved party kept or had access to the required records so they also couldn't prove it wasn't a legitimate upgrade, so I see your point. Let me rephrase my standpoint in light of this: I do think it's Tesla's fault here and I am in favour of customer protection. They shouldn't be allowed to just take it away assuming foul play unless there is clear, obvious evidence for that. I do think they have valid reason for wanting to lock it back down, but I do think they should be the one to proof it was an illegitimate upgrade. If that is hard or impossible such as here, they should eat it and let it be. Also like @Spotty mentions I agree with the "reasonable time" argument. After some time it's just been too long and this does sound like it's well past such a time. Us plebs also cannot indefinitely claim mistakes or stolen things after a certain time period expires, neither should companies in situations like this. Like I mentioned above, I think it's fine for Tesla to contest this, but it's a contest between them and Person A, not between you and Tesla.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Nobody has any proof of ownership so we should just let whoever currently has it physically keep it.

Yes because unless you have anything proving otherwise possession is possession, Tesla doesn't own the car nor the battery so it's awfully presumptuous of them to just go ahead to make a modification to a car they do not own.

 

Further the owner has the legal title to the car so legal ownership of the battery, done deal on that one. So if nobody can prove anything specifically about the battery then it's the property of the vehicle owner.

 

Hence my sarcastic comment.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe I am more used to this because I work a lot with enterprise hardware and software.

In the enterprise space, it is not uncommon for hardware to be locked down through software.

Yea and so do I but this doesn't relate at all. When is the last time you warranty returned a firewall and it's come back with features now locked out (or in this case enabled) and then they turn around and try and charge you to enable them again? Never correct? Because if to comes back with features disabled then they either screwed up or you just have to apply your license back to it.

 

Not once have I ever received something back more feature enabled than when it went away when it pertains to software licensing.

 

But one thing they for sure don't do is intentionally and knowingly piss off their customer without first communicating the issue before doing it.

 

This literally isn't at all about software locking, this is about the legality and right to do it when, as far as I can see, have zero claim to do so. They just went ahead and did it because "screw the customer". It's not about being used to it at all, it's about a company doing something to somebodies legally owned property they have no right to do anything to without permission/consent from the owner. Just because Tesla detects or thinks their is a discrepancy doesn't mean they "have the right to do something"

 

I can assure you very strongly Statue of Limitation is a thing, even for you, and it's almost certainly well passed no matter the country. Companies don't get infinite time for anything, if they make a mistake and don't notice then that is too damn bad for them, just like it is for us.

 

Everyone could be in the wrong, doesn't mean anyone has legal right to damn diddly squat about it.

[leadeater]

15 minutes ago, tikker said:

but I do think they should be the one to proof it was an illegitimate upgrade

I couldn't care less if they could prove it, I am 99% sure it's well past the time allowed where they can legally do this.

 

27 minutes ago, Spotty said:

I touched on this earlier, but I suspect they wouldn't want word getting out that everybody with a 60kWh battery can get a free upgrade to the 90kWh battery by getting the battery swapped under warranty, especially since a battery upgrade is (or was) a premium option Tesla provided for a fee.

Also probably stems from no longer making 60kwh batteries, also would be good idea to get the swap done if you can even locked to 60kwh because a 90kwh locked to 60 will last significantly longer than a 60kwh battery. If I had grounds to get mine warranty replaced I'd jump on that just for this reason alone.

[AlTech]

Imagine you go to the bank to withdraw money and you ask to withdraw $60 and the bank teller gives you $90 by mistake and somehow neither you nor the bank teller notice this discrepancy inside the bank.

 

Another time you go back to the bank to do something else and this time the bank teller tells you they noticed that they gave you too much money last time so they have deducted another $30 from your bank account but they offer to add $30 back to your account if you give them back the extra $30 cash they gave you.

 

Did the bank steal $30 from you? Of course not. And suggesting otherwise in a real bank and causing a disturbance would likely get you dragged out of the bank by security or the police.

 

And yet replace the $ with Wh and replace the bank with Tesla's repair centre and the bank teller with Tesla's technician and you more or less have the same situation.

 

But because the company in this case is Tesla many people in this thread and on social media are saying that Tesla did steal the extra 30Wh that the 90Wh battery had that the customer got by accident.

 

Tesla was in the right and they didn't need to give that customer the 90Wh capacity back via software and they had every right to ask the customer to pay $4500 if the wanted to keep the 90Wh battery. The current owner was wrong.

[Avocado Diaboli]

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Imagine you go to the bank to withdraw money and  you ask to withdraw $60 and the bank teller gives you $90 by mistake and somehow neither you nor the bank teller notice this discrepancy inside the bank.

 

Another time you go back to the bank to do something else and this time the bank teller tells you they noticed that they gave you too much money last time so they have deducted another $30 from your bank account but they offer to add $30 back to your account if you give them back the extra $30 cash they gave you.

 

Did the bank steal $30 from you? Of course not. And suggesting otherwise in a real bank and causing a disturbance would likely get you dragged out of the bank by security or the police.

 

And yet replace the $ with Wh and replace the bank with Tesla's repair centre and the bank teller with Tesla's technician and you more or less have the same situation.

 

But because the company in this case is Tesla many people in this thread and on social media are saying that Tesla did steal the extra 30Wh that the 90Wh battery had that the customer got by accident.

 

Tesla was in the right and they didn't need to give that customer the 90Wh capacity back via software and they had every right to ask the customer to pay $4500 if the wanted to keep the 90Wh battery. The current owner was wrong.

How have you missed the entire point here that the car was sold in the mean time? Your analogy breaks down entirely here.

 

You want to withdraw $60, the bank gives you $90 but still books it as -$60 in your account.

You pay me $90 for something you want to buy from me.

Then the bank notices the discrepancy and takes $30 out of my account without my consent, since you paid me with those $90.

 

Explain to me in detail how this is reasonable and not a total breach of trust and a massive violation of the law on the part of the bank.

[Spotty]

23 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Imagine you go to the bank to withdraw money and you ask to withdraw $60 and the bank teller gives you $90 by mistake and somehow neither you nor the bank teller notice this discrepancy inside the bank.

Another time you go back to the bank to do something else and this time the bank teller tells you they noticed that they gave you too much money last time so they have deducted another $30 from your bank account but they offer to add $30 back to your account if you give them back the extra $30 cash they gave you.

Your analogy doesn't work because it misses the fact that the car was sold to a third party that had no contract or exchange with Tesla. The current owner purchased the car as a 90kWh model and it was fully functional as a 90kWh model at time of purchase, presumably paying a premium for the 90kWh version over similar 60kWh Teslas.

 

To fix your analogy it would be:
John goes to the bank and get a bank cheque for $90.
The teller makes a mistake and only deducts $60 from John's bank account.
John then uses that bank cheque to purchase something from you to the value of $90.
You then take your $90 bank cheque to your bank to cash it.
The teller cashes the cheque and tells you that the cheque is only worth $60 because John's bank teller made a mistake.

In that situation should you get the $90 you are entitled to as per the value of the cheque or should you only get $60? Would you seriously tell the bank "Ah well that sounds fair I'll only take $60 then since his bank made a mistake"? Your analogy falls apart once you add an innocent 3rd party.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Spotty