Recently, some netizens broke the news that they bought a Tesla Model 3 exhibition car, and clearly required only HW3.0 chips before purchasing the car, and at the same time explicitly refused to replace the vehicle with a small battery.
As a result, after picking up the car, he found that the vehicle chip was the 2.5 old version, and Tesla also concealed the fact that the small battery maintenance of the replacement vehicle was also concealed.
But on February 25 last year, Tesla sales admitted that there was a problem, but Tesla did not come forward to solve it, requiring the owner to pay 64,000 yuan to buy FSD and upgrade the HW3.0 chip.
At the same time, the owner also found that in the months before he bought the car, the vehicle had a record of repair and replacement of small battery failures, and felt that it was deliberately concealed by the sales.
Video
Later, because Tesla officials did not agree to solve the chip problem, the sales expressed their willingness to make some compensation to the owners themselves. The owner did not accept this, and he hoped that Tesla would deal with the matter, not the sale.
The owner also continued to complain about Tesla, and finally, Tesla replied to 12315, admitted the problem, and was willing to replace the HW3.0 chip, but did not communicate effectively with the owner, only informing him of the processing plan for replacing 3.0.
The owner was dissatisfied with Tesla's approach and attitude, and sued Tesla for sales fraud in July last year, demanding a refund of one and three losses.
After several delays in the lawsuit, the owner lost.
The court's judgment shows that the HW3.0 chip promised by the salesman did not inform tesla of the replacement of the small battery, which was indeed a misconduct of Tesla, but the vehicle involved in the case was an exhibition car, and the two signed the "Notice of Non-brand New Car Sales Status and Consent to Purchase", making it clear that Tesla did not ensure that the vehicle did not have some defects and defects that could not be found.
In addition, the determination of factors such as the problems, causes, and fraud of the vehicle in this case is not enough to determine that Tesla deliberately informed the false situation or concealed the true situation, so it cannot support the owner's claim of "refunding one and paying three".
The insurance premiums, attorneys' fees and other litigation claims claimed by the car owner are also not supported due to the lack of legal basis.
