Cybertruck defect on outlets - Tesla can't fix, going to buyback

[cybertruckvegas]

Again a reasonable argument to quote a law so I will address your argument:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.118.041

2)(c)
A new motor vehicle is deemed to have been "subject to diagnose or repair" when a consumer presents the new motor vehicle for warranty service at a service and repair facility authorized, designated, or maintained by a manufacturer to provide warranty services or a facility to which the manufacturer or an authorized facility has directed the consumer to obtain warranty service. A new motor vehicle has not been "subject to diagnose or repair" if the consumer refuses to allow the facility to attempt or complete a recommended warranty repair, or demands return of the vehicle to the consumer before an attempt to diagnose or repair can be completed.

->Time is calculated specifically between the time it is presented for repair and time it is repaired. In fact the law address the issue of discontinuous only if the consumer requests the return of the vehicle before repair is completed. It does not give the option for the manufacturer to return the vehicle before the return is completed.

Maybe...

http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.118.041
"2)(c) the vehicle is out of service by reason of diagnosis or repair of one or more nonconformities for a cumulative total of thirty calendar days, at least fifteen of them during the period of the applicable manufacturer's written warranty;"

You may need to show it was in service due to diagnosis or repair activities, not because you didn't want to pick it up. If they aren't reassembling everything while waiting for parts, that likely runs out the clock.

Not picking it up might work against claiming under clause b)
"(b) the same nonconformity has been subject to diagnosis or repair four or more times, at least one of which is during the period of coverage of the applicable manufacturer's written warranty, and the nonconformity continues to exist;"

Sponsored

 

[cybertruckvegas]

Sorry yes my error but more direct proof eg I need outlets and only 1 of 2 reasons I got a cybertruck.

Just to be clear, that post of mine was supporting your position. My other post was mildly pushing back on the 30 days part of things.

 

[CyberGus]

We are in violent agreement that Tesla must resolve this issue. We disagree about invoking the Lemon Law, since that will likely cause you more headaches than letting them repair it (unless of course they pronounce it unfixable).

Here’s a TMC thread about someone with a brand-new Model X so biblically bad it should have been in the Book of Job. Tesla agreed to buy it back under the Lemon Law, and from start to finish it only took… 10 months

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/thr...elivery-experience-no-quality-control.285573/

The Lemon Law is not some magic wand that will make a defect-free vehicle instantaneously appear in your driveway.

 

[cybertruckvegas]

As you said we all agree there's an issue. For me it's more serious than for someone that doesn't have 240v tools so I can see where people come from eg you just want a toy when I want a tool.

Why do they have forums and free speech in general? It's so you can discuss your concerns and figure out solutions.

My primary gripes:
1) Lemon law shouldn't even need to exist. It's common sense for a manufacturer to do as much as possible to satisfy customers quickly. They already attempted to fix it one time for 8 days and were unsuccessful. Second attempt they just couldn't figure out what was wrong and also claim they need to wait for parts yet ship hundreds of trucks a day to new customers. You can't pull a part off the assembly line or give me one of the loaner trucks?
2) On a brand new car, they make you wait 30 days for an appointment in Las Vegas. This can be argued "presented for service" is when I drove to the dealership and asked for an earlier appointment and they said no. I have already been more than reasonable eg waited almost 60 freaking days to get the feature I need to work.
3) They have no Cybertruck loaners. They could just pull a new one and give it out as a loaner/test drive but they refuse to do so and I can't do my job with the 240v tools.
4) They refuse to swap the car when it's new. It's not 6 months old, it's not 1 year old, it's brand new and never worked.

So fundamentally what is the problem? Telsa says "we are too busy". That is the fundamental gripe.

If the guys work on it for 30-90 days but gave me a new loaner so I could get my job done I wouldn't care. Instead they want to make more sales which is why we have these laws.

My personal opinion is there was easy solution eg give the man the cybertruck off the lot and then he won't care about waiting. Because we made him wait 30 days were the value dropped from a FS to non-FS $20k, give him compensation.

We are in violent agreement that Tesla must resolve this issue. We disagree about invoking the Lemon Law, since that will likely cause you more headaches than letting them repair it (unless of course they pronounce it unfixable).

Here’s a TMC thread about someone with a brand-new Model X so biblically bad it should have been in the Book of Job. Tesla agreed to buy it back under the Lemon Law, and from start to finish it only took… 10 months

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/thr...elivery-experience-no-quality-control.285573/

The Lemon Law is not some magic wand that will make a defect-free vehicle instantaneously appear in your driveway.

 

[mongo]

Again a reasonable argument to quote a law so I will address your argument:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.118.041

2)(c)
A new motor vehicle is deemed to have been "subject to diagnose or repair" when a consumer presents the new motor vehicle for warranty service at a service and repair facility authorized, designated, or maintained by a manufacturer to provide warranty services or a facility to which the manufacturer or an authorized facility has directed the consumer to obtain warranty service.

[SUMMARY]
A new motor vehicle has not been "subject to diagnose or repair" if the consumer refuses to allow the facility to attempt or complete a recommended warranty repair, or demands return of the vehicle to the consumer before an attempt to diagnose or repair can be completed.

->Time is calculated specifically between the time it is presented for repair and time it is repaired. In fact the law address the issue of discontinuous only if the consumer requests the return of the vehicle before repair is completed. It does not give the option for the manufacturer to return the vehicle before the return is completed.

I pulled up the actual law because the summary you quotesd is ambiguous as to the status of a presented vehicle that is not currently "out of service by reason of diagnosis or repair"

The clause is, at least partly, there to prevent the situation of a problem the dealer is not allowed to fix. Not necessarily the case where the vehicle is returned before the repair is completed.

For example (non safety issue) :
Day 1: diagnosis reveals it needs a part that has a 31 day lead time.
Days 2-32: driving the car
Day 33: take it in for repair.

Otherwise, a 30+ day lead time on any part could trigger lemon on all vehicles with that failure (see also a recall).

 

[cybertruckvegas]

We are in agreement if you take the car back it is not considered "out of service".

We disagree on a few things:
1) The way the law is written "presented for repair" means you driving to the dealership which I did and they told me they had no appointments for 30 days already starts ticking the clock. You may disagree but I'm quite certain I would prevail on this because I doubt the "we are too busy" excuse would sit well with a reasonable arbitrator/judge/jury. Sure if they were actively trying or there are no cars being built or available then that could be a sympathy story for the manufacturer eg we tried our best. Instead they ship dozens if not hundreds new Cybertrucks every single day. Both parts and replacement vehicles are available.

The law is fairly written eg if the consumer does not make the car available then not the manufacturer's fault. It does not state if the manufacturer is "too busy" and too greedy to sell new cars instead of fixing yours as a valid excuse.

2) I've never been notified car has available for pickup. In fact they told me the opposite eg was apart and not available for pickup. They hypothetically told me they could put the car back together if I wanted but in Tesla style, they never made the offer without me pushing for it so I'm just going to sit on it.

This is true if 30+ day leadtime should trigger a lemon on the vehicle. That's the risk you have for making cars eg just don't make bad products or you got to buy them back. That's pretty common sense eg anything I buy on amazon that doesn't work they take back in 30 days.

I think reasonable people come to reasonable solutions without needing the government to tell them what to do.

My reasonable suggestion is give me a cybertruck loaner with working outlet or some other compensation eg let me return it so I can buy a new one.

I pulled up the actual law because the summary you quotesd is ambiguous as to the status of a presented vehicle that is not currently "out of service by reason of diagnosis or repair"

The clause is, at least partly, there to prevent the situation of a problem the dealer is not allowed to fix. Not necessarily the case where the vehicle is returned before the repair is completed.

For example (non safety issue) :
Day 1: diagnosis reveals it needs a part that has a 31 day lead time.
Days 2-32: driving the car
Day 33: take it in for repair.

Otherwise, a 30+ day lead time on any part could trigger lemon on all vehicles with that failure (see also a recall).

 

[mongo]

We are in agreement if you take the car back it is not considered "out of service".

We disagree on a few things:
1) The way the law is written "presented for repair" means you driving to the dealership which I did and they told me they had no appointments for 30 days already starts ticking the clock. You may disagree but I'm quite certain I would prevail on this because I doubt the "we are too busy" excuse would sit well with a reasonable arbitrator/judge/jury. Sure if they were actively trying or there are no cars being built or available then that could be a sympathy story for the manufacturer eg we tried our best. Instead they ship dozens if not hundreds new Cybertrucks every single day. Both parts and replacement vehicles are available.

The law is fairly written eg if the consumer does not make the car available then not the manufacturer's fault. It does not state if the manufacturer is "too busy" and too greedy to sell new cars instead of fixing yours as a valid excuse.

2) I've never been notified car has available for pickup. In fact they told me the opposite eg was apart and not available for pickup. They hypothetically told me they could put the car back together if I wanted but in Tesla style, they never made the offer without me pushing for it so I'm just going to sit on it.

This is true if 30+ day leadtime should trigger a lemon on the vehicle. That's the risk you have for making cars eg just don't make bad products or you got to buy them back. That's pretty common sense eg anything I buy on amazon that doesn't work they take back in 30 days.

I think reasonable people come to reasonable solutions without needing the government to tell them what to do.

My reasonable suggestion is give me a cybertruck loaner with working outlet or some other compensation eg let me return it so I can buy a new one.

Starting backwards, we agree on 2)

You may need to show it was in service due to diagnosis or repair activities, not because you didn't want to pick it up. If they aren't reassembling everything while waiting for parts, that likely runs out the clock.

1) I resd the law as the 30 days is time out of service, not time with the issue:

(c) the vehicle is out of service by reason of diagnosis or repair of one or more nonconformities for a cumulative total of thirty calendar days,

In service is arguable as to whether auxiliary functions count.

Since they haven't offered the un-fixed truck back to you, it's obviously not in service.

 

[cybertruckvegas]

Sure we agree on (2) but I think I'm already in lemon terrority due to this:
(2c):
2)(c)
A new motor vehicle is deemed to have been "subject to diagnose or repair" when a consumer presents the new motor vehicle for warranty service at a service and repair facility authorized, designated, or maintained by a manufacturer to provide warranty services or a facility to which the manufacturer or an authorized facility has directed the consumer to obtain warranty service.

->As soon as it is presented, the clock starts ticking. That is a clear definition. No appointments available is not a valid excuse.

This might be a very good thing for consumers to notice eg Tesla can't put you off for 30 days with "we are too busy" excuse so may change service for the better if someone pushes on this and prevails.

Starting backwards, we agree on 2)


1) I resd the law as the 30 days is time out of service, not time with the issue:

(c) the vehicle is out of service by reason of diagnosis or repair of one or more nonconformities for a cumulative total of thirty calendar days,

In service is arguable as to whether auxiliary functions count.

Since they haven't offered the un-fixed truck back to you, it's obviously not in service.

 

[mongo]

Sure we agree on (2) but I think I'm already in lemon terrority due to this:
(2c):
2)(c)
A new motor vehicle is deemed to have been "subject to diagnose or repair" when a consumer presents the new motor vehicle for warranty service at a service and repair facility authorized, designated, or maintained by a manufacturer to provide warranty services or a facility to which the manufacturer or an authorized facility has directed the consumer to obtain warranty service.

->As soon as it is presented, the clock starts ticking. That is a clear definition. No appointments available is not a valid excuse.

This might be a very good thing for consumers to notice eg Tesla can't put you off for 30 days with "we are too busy" excuse so may change service for the better if someone pushes on this and prevails.

Are you quoting a different law source?
I read 2c that as the clock is ticking while it is at the repair facility. Otherwise it's not an out of service duration criteria.
Consider a one week fix, then a month later that part breaks (random flaw) and it takes another week to fix.
Was that a month and two weeks or just two weeks out of service? It was over 30 days from first being presented and it was the same problem.
If it were purely 30 days from first presentation, the 4 attempt clause wouldn't be needed (assuming they occurred over more than a month).

 

[cybertruckvegas]

Here is the full text of (2c) with relevant parts bolded:
https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=19.118.041

(2) Reasonable number of attempts, except in the case of a new motor vehicle that is a motor home, shall be deemed to have been undertaken by the manufacturer, its agent, or the new motor vehicle dealer to conform the new motor vehicle to the warranty within the eligibility period, if: (a) The same serious safety defect has been subject to diagnosis or repair two or more times, at least one of which is during the period of coverage of the applicable manufacturer's written warranty, and the serious safety defect continues to exist; (b) the same nonconformity has been subject to diagnosis or repair four or more times, at least one of which is during the period of coverage of the applicable manufacturer's written warranty, and the nonconformity continues to exist; (c) the vehicle is out of service by reason of diagnosis or repair of one or more nonconformities for a cumulative total of thirty calendar days, at least fifteen of them during the period of the applicable manufacturer's written warranty; or (d) within a twelve-month period, two or more different serious safety defects, each of which have been subject to diagnosis or repair one or more times, where at least one attempt for each serious safety defect occurs during the period of coverage of the applicable manufacturer's written warranty and within the eligibility period. For purposes of this subsection, the manufacturer's written warranty shall be at least one year after the date of the original delivery to the consumer of the vehicle or the first twelve thousand miles of operation, whichever occurs first. A new motor vehicle is deemed to have been "subject to diagnose or repair" when a consumer presents the new motor vehicle for warranty service at a service and repair facility authorized, designated, or maintained by a manufacturer to provide warranty services or a facility to which the manufacturer or an authorized facility has directed the consumer to obtain warranty service. A new motor vehicle has not been "subject to diagnose or repair" if the consumer refuses to allow the facility to attempt or complete a recommended warranty repair, or demands return of the vehicle to the consumer before an attempt to diagnose or repair can be completed.

->As soon as it is presented to the service center it is considered "subject to diagnose or repair", doesn't matter if they work on it or not.

Are you quoting a different law source?
I read 2c that as the clock is ticking while it is at the repair facility. Otherwise it's not an out of service duration criteria.
Consider a one week fix, then a month later that part breaks (random flaw) and it takes another week to fix.
Was that a month and two weeks or just two weeks out of service? It was over 30 days from first being presented and it was the same problem.
If it were purely 30 days from first presentation, the 4 attempt clause wouldn't be needed (assuming they occurred over more than a month).

 

[cybertruckvegas]

After further analysis, this is quite interesting in the same section:
(2b) the same nonconformity has been subject to diagnosis or repair four or more times, at least one of which is during the period of coverage of the applicable manufacturer's written warranty, and the nonconformity continues to exist;

Combined with

(2c)A new motor vehicle is deemed to have been "subject to diagnose or repair" when a consumer presents the new motor vehicle for warranty service at a service and repair facility authorized, designated, or maintained by a manufacturer to provide warranty services or a facility to which the manufacturer or an authorized facility has directed the consumer to obtain warranty service. A new motor vehicle has not been "subject to diagnose or repair" if the consumer refuses to allow the facility to attempt or complete a recommended warranty repair, or demands return of the vehicle to the consumer before an attempt to diagnose or repair can be completed.

-> so if you go to the dealer 4x and they turn you away 4x because no appointment available that's enough to trigger the lemon.

That would only take 4 days / 4 visits instead of need to wait 30 days. Seems like we might be getting much faster service in the future if this prevails.

 

[cybertruckvegas]

Chatgpt 4o also agrees with me - again this is pretty big find...

 

[agordon117]

you're going to be incredibly tough pressed to find a judge/arbiter who agrees with your pretty wild assertions.

Specifically: "I took it to the dealer, and they turned me away because they don't have an immediate service appointment available, so that counts as an attempt to repair and also starts the 30 day timer"

You keep posting the same bits of the law over and over, but none of it has any meaning beyond your assertion that you feel you have started the timer or had it counted as an "attempt" since there was no available appointment on some random day when you happened to show up there.



Literally no judge is going to look at your case and say "oh, you know what, that does count as presenting the vehicle to them for repair since you drove it to their parking lot"

Everyone has to wait in line for service. if the law worked the way you are pretending, no manufacturer could ever sell any car. They can't give everyone immediate service or a new vehicle because they don't have people standing around waiting to bring cars in and fix them that day every time. The service line would remain just as long, and the car prices would triple since everything would just have to be perfect when it leaves the factory, tested for 3 months and 10,000 miles. Every button, receptacle, latch, tested to a thousand cycles. Every "new" car would really be used, because they would have to test it very extensively to prevent any car from ever needing service. Since every manufacturer has issues getting parts quickly and scheduling service appointments, this would just be a catastrophe for the entire auto industry. It's just not possible.


Sorry that you're having trouble with your truck, but you aren't special for any of the reasons you seem to think that you are.

 

[cybertruckvegas]

Argument is pretty convincing above and Chatgpt agrees so someone else may agree which means it's not dismissable. Courts are never predictable but I definitely have a point here.

If you don't like it, you can vote to repeal the law but it's exactly what it says right now.

you're going to be incredibly tough pressed to find a judge/arbiter who agrees with your pretty wild assertions.

Specifically: "I took it to the dealer, and they turned me away because they don't have an immediate service appointment available, so that counts as an attempt to repair and also starts the 30 day timer"

You keep posting the same bits of the law over and over, but none of it has any meaning beyond your assertion that you feel you have started the timer or had it counted as an "attempt" since there was no available appointment on some random day when you happened to show up there.



Literally no judge is going to look at your case and say "oh, you know what, that does count as presenting the vehicle to them for repair since you drove it to their parking lot"

Everyone has to wait in line for service. if the law worked the way you are pretending, no manufacturer could ever sell any car. They can't give everyone immediate service or a new vehicle because they don't have people standing around waiting to bring cars in and fix them that day every time. The service line would remain just as long, and the car prices would triple since everything would just have to be perfect when it leaves the factory, tested for 3 months and 10,000 miles. Every button, receptacle, latch, tested to a thousand cycles. Every "new" car would really be used, because they would have to test it very extensively to prevent any car from ever needing service. Since every manufacturer has issues getting parts quickly and scheduling service appointments, this would just be a catastrophe for the entire auto industry. It's just not possible.


Sorry that you're having trouble with your truck, but you aren't special for any of the reasons you seem to think that you are.

 

[agordon117]

Argument is pretty convincing above and Chatgpt agrees so someone else may agree which means it's not dismissable. Courts are never predictable but I definitely have a point here.

If you don't like it, you can vote to repeal the law but it's exactly what it says right now.

Oh wow, that's it then, case closed. Chat GPT agrees with you. Hard to argue with that

/s

Sponsored