Manufacturer of specialized in various engine camshafts

Tesla fraud? The court's decision: return one and pay three!

by:Yisheng      2021-06-08

Mr. Han bought a Tesla official certified second-hand car Model S P85 on Tesla’s official website. Before buying, he was informed by the sales that there were no major accidents, blisters, fires, and structural damage to the Tesla certified car. However, Mr. Han always found some minor problems in the car afterwards, and he needed to go to the Tesla service center frequently for repairs, and then passed a third-party inspection. The C-pillar and rear fender of the vehicle were cut and welded. Sla. Since defending his rights in August 19, Mr. Han has waited until the court's ruling: refund one and compensate three.

On December 4th, Mr. Han said on his personal Weibo, 'I won the case, refund one and pay three!'

Advertising housing mortgage loans, flexible repayment methods, low monthly repayment pressure, and loan periods of 1-20 years! ^^ Housing mortgage loans, residential, commercial, and office can apply! Loan line 10-5.. .

According to the civil judgment issued by the People's Court of Daxing District, Beijing, Tesla was sentenced to a refund of one compensation and three compensation for the fraudulent purchase. That is, the car purchase contract was revoked, and Tesla returned 379,700 yuan for the purchase of the car and compensated 1,139,100 yuan. In the judgment, the court held that the repair of the vehicle involved does involve large-area cutting, welding, etc. This repair method and extent will inevitably have an important impact on consumers’ willingness to buy a car, and Tesla only informed Mr. Han that “the vehicle does not have a structure. 'Sexual injury' is still not enough to achieve the required level of information disclosure. Whether in terms of positive actions or negative inactions, Tesla meets the objective requirements of fraud. Regarding the question of whether Tesla has intentional fraud, based on the facts of this case, it can be seen that Tesla is aware of or should be aware of the accident and maintenance of the vehicle involved, and it has the subjective conditions for fraud. In summary, Tesla Inc. constituted a fraud.

Tesla China’s official response to the media said: Fully respect the judgment of the court based on current information and fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. However, the craftsmanship of the vehicle in this incident is quite different from that of the traditional model. We believe that the vehicle evaluation report in the first instance does not fully and accurately reflect the true condition of the vehicle. Therefore, Tesla will appeal in accordance with the law.

It is understood that on June 1, 2019, Mr. Han ordered an official Tesla certified second-hand car, model S P85, with a total price of 379,700 yuan on the Tesla official website. Fang confirmed that all officially certified second-hand cars have undergone a comprehensive original factory inspection.

The owner said, “Tesla’s official certified second-hand car is higher than the market price of the second-hand car. I bought this car because I believe in the official pre-sales promotion and related quality assurance, as well as after-sale quality assurance. And I double-checked before and after the sales, and I have informed me that Tesla will not sell major accidents, blisters, fires, and no structural damage.'

The delivery of the vehicle was completed on June 5, 2019, but the owner found many vehicle problems after using the vehicle for more than two months. During this period, he went to the service center for repairs at least 7 times.

After a shock event, Mr. Han questioned the quality of the vehicle. 'On the evening of August 24, 2019, I drove this vehicle on a high-speed, the speed was about 120, suddenly the car made a bang, brakes, the switch was completely paralyzed, and five fault codes jumped out.' Mr. Han said , Almost caused a major traffic accident, and then the vehicle was checked and repaired to the Tesla service center.

After questioning the quality of the vehicle, Mr. Han entrusted a third-party agency to appraise the vehicle. The result showed that the vehicle's C-pillar and rear fender were cut and welded, and it was an accident vehicle.

Mr. Han said, “The inspection results found that the left c-pillar and the outer plate of the c-pillar were cut and welded. This is the integrated frame of the car body. If there is cutting and welding, the integrated structure of the car body will be damaged and there will be major safety risks. , Does not meet the Tesla certification car sales standards.'

In a fit of anger, Mr. Han decided to sue Tesla and resolve the matter through legal channels.

According to media reports, Tesla argued that during the original owner's use of the vehicle, the vehicle had a very minor collision and scratching accident when it changed lanes on January 8, 2019. According to evidence such as on-site photos, damage assessment agreement, accident certification, and maintenance orders, it can be proved that the accident only damaged the left rear fender of the vehicle body, the edge of the rear bumper and the surface of the wheel hub, and did not damage the safety structure of the vehicle at all, and did not constitute a major Accident or structural damage; Tesla also has no knowledge of the accident, and there is no intention to deceive. At the same time, Tesla believes that there are no major accidents in the vehicle involved, and there is no structural damage caused by the replacement of the fender. Tesla has not committed any fraud when selling the vehicle, and the vehicle delivered to Mr. Han is fully in line with ' There is no major accident and the sales promise of 'No major accidents and soaking water'. Mr. Han's litigation request has no factual and legal basis and should be rejected in its entirety.

According to our understanding, in the incident, there were a total of three appraisals before and after the vehicle involved, and the court finally concluded the following conclusion after synthesis.

Beijing Daxing District People’s Court of the first instance held that the repair of the vehicle involved in the case did involve large-area cutting, welding, etc. Tesla is aware of or should be aware of the accident and maintenance of the vehicle involved . Tesla constituted a fraud and refunded one compensation three.

In response to this matter, Tesla responded that it would appeal in accordance with the law.

Custom message
Chat Online
Chat Online
Leave Your Message inputting...
Sign in with: