TESLA is Cancelling Cybertruck FS Orders - No Refunds - Sign the Petition

[GnarlyDudeLive]

Tesla already does this for their other vehicles... they allow changes to the orders. This ability to alter the order is not mentioned in the agreement. Yet everyone is acting like its complete unreasonable to do for the CT.

It is unreasonable because at this time Tesla does not offer any other variation of the product being purchased.

I simply have the opinion that Tesla would sell more vehicles and earn more revenue if they agreed to sell these customers a different vehicle. Its clearly an unpopular opinion, and I am ok with that. We can agree to disagree.

Until Tesla can fulfill every single reservation in place and any future reservations that occur during the production of the existing reservations, Tesla cannot sell any more vehicles due to supply and demand. It could be years before they get to this being an issue of concern for them.

Sponsored

 

[Spacenoddle]

SIGN THE PETITION https://chng.it/74JWJbTxJz

Tesla is cancelling Foundation Series Cybertruck orders, and forcing people who ordered an FS Cybertruck to take delivery or lose their $1,000 deposit.

In November 2023, Tesla starting taking $1,000 deposits for a Foundation Series Cybertruck.
There are plenty of people that put a $1,000 deposit thinking they would get a non-FS Cybertruck.

Our petition is for TESLA to:

#1 Allow those people, who put a $1,000 deposit, to get put in the line to get a non-FS Cybertruck.
#2 OR convert to another Tesla Model delivery
#3 OR convert to Tesla Cash.

Didn't you have the very early CT like first 100 or something like it already?

Personally i feel it is so childish to have such petition but the squeaky wheel gets the grease， never hurt to ask anyway. Good luck.

 

[dalton108]

This is not true. Businesses are liable for employee action.

Liability isn't a binary, tho.

-Crissa

Nor is your restatement what I said. I said, in the context of a contract, a frontline employee cannot orally bind the entity to terms that are different than the already consummated contract, which supersedes anything not within the four corners of the agreement already perfected.

Liability is an entirely different issue. You are conflating two different legal concepts.

You can’t undo a written contract with an oral “promise” from some frontline employee. “Oh, it’s OK we’ll let you roll that into a non-foundation purchase.” NO!

He can document it, video it, have it certified by the ghost of Abraham Lincoln (who cannot tell a lie), it’s a non-starter! The terms of the contract he entered into in writing are already signed, sealed, and delivered.

1. Offer.
2. Acceptance.
3. Done.

That’s a legally binding contract. PERIOD. No oral modification, no written modification without additional consideration and steps 1, 2, 3 from above being completed again. And I guarantee you that Tesla sales advisors are not allowed to modify their carefully worded and vetted contracts.

But you’re welcome to test that theory for yourself.

 

[denniscw]

Didn't you have the very early CT like first 100 or something like it already?

Personally i feel it is so childish to have such petition but the squeaky wheel gets the grease， never hurt to ask anyway. Good luck.

I'm doing it for the people

 

[Crissa]

That’s a legally binding contract. PERIOD. No oral modification, no written modification without additional consideration and steps 1, 2, 3 from above being completed again. And I guarantee you that Tesla sales advisors are not allowed to modify their carefully worded and vetted contracts.

But you’re welcome to test that theory for yourself.

Then you're in violation of California law.

And no, oral contracts are binding. You can't say one thing and write another. That's called fraud.

As much as think they should have known better before forking over $1000, your legal advice is bad.

-Crissa

 

[dalton108]

Then you're in violation of California law.

And no, oral contracts are binding. You can't say one thing and write another. That's called fraud.

As much as think they should have known better before forking over $1000, your legal advice is bad.

-Crissa

Never said oral contracts weren’t binding. I said an oral contract cannot supersede a written perfected contract and that is the case in every state in the nation. You absolutely can say one thing and write another because writing trumps 100% of the time. There’s no fraud on someone who had every opportunity to read the written contract before they entered into it.

You should stop what you’re doing.

I’m a lawyer and a law professor.

From what I know of you, from your posts, you appear to be an expert on a number of subjects, from engineering to now apparently contract law, but don’t own a cybertruck. Right? So you haven’t gone through the process of purchasing one and therefore haven’t seen the agreements to which those of us who have have agreed to? Right?

When I post on this forum it is always on something that I am personally familiar with or qualified to offer useful commentary on. Otherwise I only have questions.

Being opinionated is easy. Being well informed and competent is different.

 

[Pops]

It is unreasonable because at this time Tesla does not offer any other variation of the product being purchased.

Umm last time I checked Tesla took money from us for a product that didn't exist for 4+ years. Hell some customers paid for FSD which has never been Full Self Driving for 4+ years. Yes It is reasonable for Tesla to hold the $1000 deposit for a few more months while they sort out what the non-FS product will look like. Then they could plop those people in their original spot, or the back of the line.

Also OP offered a perfectly reasonable alternative, a credit that can be used towards other Tesla products. It could also be used towards future products like the non-FS CT.

 

[dalton108]

Then you're in violation of California law.

…

That's called fraud.

No. Firstly, because I haven’t breached any contracts and I’m not trying to modify any orally. Secondly, because what I’ve told you is exactly what California law appears to be and it would be worth noting that - I’m not in the Golden State and the entire country is not the Golden State, but since my law degree is real, my 22 years of practice are as well, and I am very much a real law professor, and the basic principles of contract law are well settled and centuries old - I think I got this … let’s see. ?

Well golly, with just the simplest of Google searches I was able to determine that while you can modify a written contract with an oral agreement by all the parties that two things would be necessary: 1. New consideration, [I’m pretty sure I said something about that] and also (2) look-a-here(!) it says that you have to have “execution” by all of the parties I wonder what that means? ? I also wonder if a frontline employee is a “party” in the context of entering into an agreement with Tesla?

I wonder if your sales advisor is actually the person who executes the contract with you when you buy a car from Tesla. Because, oh my God if they’re not, they’re not the actual party authorized to enter into the agreement with you. Hmmm. ?

And by dint of that fact, they would not be able to modify a contract with you orally or otherwise. This all seems really familiar to what I previously said, it’s as if maybe I have some insider knowledge. ??‍ Who can say.

Anywho, when you said fraud above I’m assuming that you are once again conflating two different concepts the “statute of frauds” which I’m guessing you came across in your hasty Internet search is kind of a misnomer, if you’re just a tourist.

It’s ancient common law that deals with the concept of how do we settle a dispute regarding contracts between parties, and it stands for the proposition that: in order to be enforceable at law agreements, generally, have to be in writing;
and, once it’s in writing we don’t rely on what are called “collateral sources” to prove the terms of the agreement. That would include prior, contemporaneous or subsequent oral statements or even other writings.

The shorthand of that is the “four corners of the document” language that I used earlier. So, the Statute of Frauds is not exactly about “fraud” as that term is used in the modern common parlance.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Especially when not tempered by any sense of propriety or humility.

OK bye now. Have a good night. Office hours are Thursdays at 8 AM to 8:30 AM. ??

 

[Pops]

...<clip>
And we will certainly have to disagree that it makes good business sense for Tesla to allow OP ( <— hint: that’s how you I’m talking about them, not you) to roll his entirely forfeited deposit into some other transaction, whether it be buying a non-foundation series vehicle or products from the Tesla shop. The thousand dollar liquidated damages represent compensation for harm done to the seller by OP.

OP is not trying to suggest this be the outcome for them. They already have the CT like me. No one is asking for these considerations be made for them personally. OP, myself and the 95 people who signed the petition so far today just feel its a win/win situation for everyone involved.

I do enjoy your writing style, legalese has a nice ring to it. I do not want to get into a dispute over semantics but I (incorrectly it would seem) thought your post was directed at me because of the statement below:

Buy the car as you agreed or don’t and lose your thousand bucks. This is precisely what you signed up for. That goes for anyone similarly situated.

I will no longer post to this thread, I gave my piece and have nothing further to contribute to the discussion.

 

[dalton108]

Correct, I was not directing that at you. And, clearly, I missed the fact that OP has his car. Thanks for that clarification.

 

[OldDirtyRobot]

There are many documented cases of Tesla allowing people to switch from FS to non-FS after the $1k deposit. This is a choice of Tesla whether or not to provide good will to its customers. Yes Tesla is within its rights to keep the $1k and cancel the orders... but is that the right thing to do? I already have my CT, but its clear to me what the right thing to do here is.

I will sign the petition.

Where are these documented cases?

 

[Jack27]

What ever. I orderd a standard rear wheel drive then got the invite for the foundation waited a month and then said F it and got it. Now I’m like “hope they don’t give out the rear wheel drive for a year ? say what you want I paid 20 extra K now I feel like I should get to have it longer before anyone ells gets them ?

 

[OldDirtyRobot]

You can just call the $1000 loss a lesson-learned tax. Don't order a car you don't plan on buying.

 

[dalton108]

You can just call the $1000 loss a lesson-learned tax. Don't order a car you don't plan on buying.

B. I.

N. G. O!

 

[WenssCT88]

Why the hell would you put $1000 down for a FS if you didn’t want a FS?

Sponsored