Range Extender Class Action Claim

[RM Rilke]

I went through the merits (or lack thereof) on this a long time ago. Basically, you bought a truck. Tesla delivered that truck. Meeting of the minds. Consideration. Fulfillment. Done. The deposit was a separate transaction that served to secure a place in line in the event the extender was offered. It wasn’t. Money returned. End of story.

Think of it this way, if you decided you no longer wanted the extender once it was made, do you seriously believe Tesla could have legally forced you to purchase it as a condition of the original purchase of the truck? Of course not. You made a deposit on a potential option. End of story. Life goes on.

Sponsored

 

[Humbleyogiwarrior]

For all of you naysayers. Here is a real estate analogy to the point I’m making: you purchased a new home from a developer who promised to install a swimming pool in your backyard after you moved in, told you how much it would cost, and requested a deposit. You paid the deposit for the swimming pool, and seven months later, they emailed you to say they would not install it and would refund your deposit. Don’t you believe you have a claim for damages? I believe in forgiveness for any offense and bygones, but it doesn't change how I feel about being misled into thinking I would eventually have a high-performance electric truck with 450 miles of range. That's what they promised and took my money to ensure it.

 

[Cybertruck Dude]

That amount included my sales Tax in California. Thank you for asking.

Thank you for the feedback. I am not a lawyer, so your input and clarification is very much appreciated.

I agree 1000%

10% sales tax

People are debating my vehicle cost, the exact number is $135,293.33

This is how I have felt from day one, after cancelling the Range Extender. I love my truck also. I want free unlimited supercharging as compensation for reneging on the promise. Tesla is currently offering a LUXE PACKAGE for new truck orders, which includes lifetime supercharging.

Well, I for one think it’s a great idea! All people that supported Tesla on the Cybertruck foundation series, as far as customers go, should matter quite a bit to Tesla. At this point financially it would strengthen that relationship with a lot of customers with deeper pockets that supported them in the beginning.
It will definitely make me rethink buying my next car in 36 months as a Tesla. That’s me and my 2 cents.

 

[CallsignVega]

Not sure what the point of stating the range at 80% charge is. That is not an advertised metric and is completely meaningless legally.

 

[CT_AZ_4x4]

For all of you naysayers. Here is a real estate analogy to the point I’m making: you purchased a new home from a developer who promised to install a swimming pool in your backyard after you moved in, told you how much it would cost, and requested a deposit. You paid the deposit for the swimming pool, and seven months later, they emailed you to say they would not install it and would refund your deposit. Don’t you believe you have a claim for damages? I believe in forgiveness for any offense and bygones, but it doesn't change how I feel about being misled into thinking I would eventually have a high-performance electric truck with 450 miles of range. That's what they promised and took my money to ensure it.

There is no claim for damages here.

Your deposit was returned because they aren’t making the range extender.

You accepted the truck as-it-was, knowing that the range was not 450 miles.

The range extender was obviously not a material part of the contract because you accepted delivery without the range extender.

A “swimming pool” is not an analogous comparison. A swimming pool is a fungible property item: nearly anyone can build one. The non-existent range extender never existed. It is not a fungible property item.

Businesses are held to a reasonable business-decision standard. Tesla decided that demand was not sufficient, so they never made the product.

Maybe you can explain in your court filing how or why adhering to market conditions is simply not a reasonable business decision?

RULE 56(b), Summary Judgement, will be granted practically before the printer ink dries on your “cause of action.”

 

[Humbleyogiwarrior]

Not sure what the point of stating the range at 80% charge is. That is not an advertised metric and is completely meaningless legally.

You are ill-informed, sir. In the mobile app, under Charging, it clearly states, "Charge tips: 80% recommended for daily driving."

Not sure what the point of stating the range at 80% charge is. That is not an advertised metric and is completely meaningless legally.

 

[Humbleyogiwarrior]

There is no claim for damages here.

Your deposit was returned because they aren’t making the range extender.

You accepted the truck as-it-was, knowing that the range was not 450 miles.

The range extender was obviously not a material part of the contract because you accepted delivery without the range extender.

A “swimming pool” is not an analogous comparison. A swimming pool is a fungible property item: nearly anyone can build one. The non-existent range extender never existed. It is not a fungible property item.

Businesses are held to a reasonable business-decision standard. Tesla decided that demand was not sufficient, so they never made the product.

Maybe you can explain in your court filing how or why adhering to market conditions is simply not a reasonable business decision?

RULE 56(b), Summary Judgement, will be granted practically before the printer ink dries on your “cause of action.”

You are missing my point. I am not requiring them to make a Range Extender; They can certainly change their minds. I am making a point about misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement, which are grounds for a misrepresentation claim.

 

[BeachDweller]

As my father said:
Put on some big boy pants and move on.

 

[CT_AZ_4x4]

You are missing my point. I am not requiring them to make a Range Extender; They can certainly change their minds. I am making a point about misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement, which are grounds for a misrepresentation claim.

Then file your suit, sir.

And come back and tell us how quickly it gets dismissed.

 

[Humbleyogiwarrior]

As my father said:
Put on some big boy pants and move on.

Sir, please don't make it personal. Sarcasm isn't what this is about.

 

[Humbleyogiwarrior]

I have never written on this forum before, but I am quickly learning that there is a lot of anger and hostility here. It is healthy to disagree and debate, but no reason for the meanness and sarcasm.

 

[REM]

I have one single, simple request for you:

Can you show me in writing by an official Tesla resource where you were promised a certain range on your Cybertruck.

 

[REM]

There is no claim for damages here.

Your deposit was returned because they aren’t making the range extender.

You accepted the truck as-it-was, knowing that the range was not 450 miles.

The range extender was obviously not a material part of the contract because you accepted delivery without the range extender.

A “swimming pool” is not an analogous comparison. A swimming pool is a fungible property item: nearly anyone can build one. The non-existent range extender never existed. It is not a fungible property item.

Businesses are held to a reasonable business-decision standard. Tesla decided that demand was not sufficient, so they never made the product.

Maybe you can explain in your court filing how or why adhering to market conditions is simply not a reasonable business decision?

RULE 56(b), Summary Judgement, will be granted practically before the printer ink dries on your “cause of action.”

 

[Humbleyogiwarrior]

I have one single, simple request for you:

Can you show me in writing by an official Tesla resource where you were promised a certain range on your Cybertruck.

SMH.

 

[REM]

SMH.

Why are you shaking your head at me? Is my question out of line? Off topic?

Sponsored