No, but saying they deserve what they get removes all responsibility from Tesla to actually deliver on their promises at the point of sale. Basic functionality is inherently one of those.
Of course Cybertruck buyers should be expected to have to put up with some crap for being early adopters of such obvious bullshit, but that doesn’t mean they should have a truck that breaks down while driving away from the dealership.
The best way is to return said crap, get a refund, and then publicly complain about. That’s the main feedback loop. If the owners won’t do that then they don’t deserve a lot of sympathy.
The OP article is about forum posts where people are publicly complaining about it. I bet if you go into those you’ll find stories of abysmal customer service from Tesla, pushing repairs with ridiculously long wait times over refunds.
Nobody held them at gunpoint making them buy it. All the evidence was there it was going to be trash, look hideous, and have terrible build quality. There comes a point the consumer is fully responsible for their decision. This is just another case of play stupid games win stupid prizes.
There comes a point the consumer is fully responsible for their decision.
At what point is that? Setting aside your opinions for this particular brand.
I don’t think there should be anything that takes all the responsibility away from the seller and leaves it with the buyer. Particularly not with a purchase over $10k, let alone a new purchase direct from a manufacturer.
Essentially, the logical conclusion of what you’re saying is that it’s ok for people to scam people, so long as it was obviously a scam, in your opinion.
They prepaid for a product that was guaranteed by the manufacturer to have certain attributes. Why wouldn’t this be the manufacturer’s responsibility to be accurate of their description of amenities?
Exactly. Tesla early adopters deserve to have a bumpy ride with it, but they don’t deserve to be left out $70k or however much and not even have a working vehicle. They deserve a refund from the manufacturer who didn’t provide a product fit for service.
I don’t like Musk, but it is disappointing that people that may have intended to make a purchase decision for at least modestly environmentally conscious considerations are getting trash instead of what was advertised. Hopefully they get refunds that they can put towards a Rivian or Ford Lightning.
Is a terrible way to handle sales from a corporation. When I purchase certain items I should be able to trust that it has certain quality of build or they’ll be liable as a business.
Now did these people make themselves marks? Yes, but even a blatant mark should have consumer protections
That applies to private sales between individuals, not between manufacturers and consumers. The manufacturer has obligations to ensure what they claim is a true and honest representation of what they’re selling.
The real irony here is that you’re basically siding with and defending Telsa in terms of their legal disputes with their customers.
Tesla should be raked over the coals for their serious lapses in, well, everything. Maybe if there was some sort of function to keep them accountable this wouldn’t happen, but money buys justice as we have seen over and over. I don’t blame the first adopters as he wasn’t quite known for his playing games and some of the first items were so sought after and weren’t quite this low level quality. But after all the stories came out of how there were serious issues with the other models the old saying remains. Should we be able to trust these huge companies? Yes. Can we trust these companies? No.
Victim blaming much?
I’m sorry, were these people forced into buying this obviously dumb product?
No, but saying they deserve what they get removes all responsibility from Tesla to actually deliver on their promises at the point of sale. Basic functionality is inherently one of those.
Of course Cybertruck buyers should be expected to have to put up with some crap for being early adopters of such obvious bullshit, but that doesn’t mean they should have a truck that breaks down while driving away from the dealership.
(Lulz. This guy thinks that companies are held accountable for crappy products.)
They should be… But they just… Aren’t.
The best way is to return said crap, get a refund, and then publicly complain about. That’s the main feedback loop. If the owners won’t do that then they don’t deserve a lot of sympathy.
The OP article is about forum posts where people are publicly complaining about it. I bet if you go into those you’ll find stories of abysmal customer service from Tesla, pushing repairs with ridiculously long wait times over refunds.
I don’t know what you expect from a vehicle that had the developers literally come out and say “yeah we didn’t crash test it and have no plans to”
Nobody held them at gunpoint making them buy it. All the evidence was there it was going to be trash, look hideous, and have terrible build quality. There comes a point the consumer is fully responsible for their decision. This is just another case of play stupid games win stupid prizes.
At what point is that? Setting aside your opinions for this particular brand.
I don’t think there should be anything that takes all the responsibility away from the seller and leaves it with the buyer. Particularly not with a purchase over $10k, let alone a new purchase direct from a manufacturer.
Essentially, the logical conclusion of what you’re saying is that it’s ok for people to scam people, so long as it was obviously a scam, in your opinion.
Your well thought out post and the downvotes it received are the main reason I don’t come on here that often.
One question: why do you think they are victims?
Because they made a purchase that didn’t match what was advertised.
They prepaid for a product that was guaranteed by the manufacturer to have certain attributes. Why wouldn’t this be the manufacturer’s responsibility to be accurate of their description of amenities?
Exactly. Tesla early adopters deserve to have a bumpy ride with it, but they don’t deserve to be left out $70k or however much and not even have a working vehicle. They deserve a refund from the manufacturer who didn’t provide a product fit for service.
I agree, but I have some bad news for you if you think that consumer protection is a big deal in the USA…
I don’t like Musk, but it is disappointing that people that may have intended to make a purchase decision for at least modestly environmentally conscious considerations are getting trash instead of what was advertised. Hopefully they get refunds that they can put towards a Rivian or Ford Lightning.
deleted by creator
… no?
caveat emptor
Is a terrible way to handle sales from a corporation. When I purchase certain items I should be able to trust that it has certain quality of build or they’ll be liable as a business.
Now did these people make themselves marks? Yes, but even a blatant mark should have consumer protections
That applies to private sales between individuals, not between manufacturers and consumers. The manufacturer has obligations to ensure what they claim is a true and honest representation of what they’re selling.
The real irony here is that you’re basically siding with and defending Telsa in terms of their legal disputes with their customers.
Tesla should be raked over the coals for their serious lapses in, well, everything. Maybe if there was some sort of function to keep them accountable this wouldn’t happen, but money buys justice as we have seen over and over. I don’t blame the first adopters as he wasn’t quite known for his playing games and some of the first items were so sought after and weren’t quite this low level quality. But after all the stories came out of how there were serious issues with the other models the old saying remains. Should we be able to trust these huge companies? Yes. Can we trust these companies? No.