Quote:
Originally Posted by Dadhawk
I'm not sure I'm following you. In this case the car was originally sold with the feature added to it, at least according to the window sticker. The car was then resold at auction by Tesla with that feature active. That, on the surface at least, is different than the feature having been inadvertently given away for free with the original purchase and then removed based on the audit.
Frankly, the "right" thing for Tesla to have done was admit their mistake (assuming there was one) and let the car retain the feature.
If you bought a Corvette, let's say, and Chevrolet inadvertently sold it to you with the Z51 package for a base price because they had stickered it wrong, would you expect Chevrolet to be able to come back later and say "oops, we need those parts back, or another $5,000". Nope, didn't think so.
|
I felt the article made it seem like Tesla is just randomly stripping people of their "paid-for" features if Tesla has any shadow of a doubt that the service was paid for or not, regardless of second-hand ownership or not. I think it was a legitimate mistake, and it just happened to someone who was irate enough to blast the car maker publicly for it.
I really do like your example of the Corvette Z51 package. The obvious reaction is also my reaction if that happened to me. I think it's an interesting situation however...
For this scenario, I'll just refer to the Z51 package as a hardware upgrade. The Full Self Driving Capability (FSD) is a software upgrade. The Vette needs said hardware physically installed, where the Model S hardware is already capable, just a matter of checking the invoice box "Paid". If any company had the ability to correct an audit finding remotely vs requiring the customer to actively (and willingly) come to the dealership and "give back what we accidentally gave you," they would opt for remote every time. Remote is exponentially more cost effective, and it solves the problem right away. If it's a legitimate mistake, a dispute can resolve the correction. If it's still a valid argument, then Tesla doesn't have to waste time chasing the person down.
Yes, even though the article says they bought it once, they shouldn't need to worry about transferring ownership of the options, THAT is just ridiculous. Now, if that's what is actually in question, then Tesla can eat a satchel of Richards.