AutoBeta(AutoBeta.net)12/05 Report--

Mr. Han bought a Tesla officially certified used car Model S P85 on Tesla official website. Before buying, he was told that there were no major accidents, blisters, fire and structural damage in the Tesla certified car, but Mr. Han always found some minor problems in the car afterwards. He needed to frequently go to the Tesla service center for maintenance. After passing the third-party inspection, the vehicle C-pillar and rear wing plate were cut and welded. Tesla was sued in anger. Since the protection of his rights in August 19, Mr. Han has waited for the court's ruling: return one to three.

On December 4, Mr. Han said on his personal Weibo, "I won the case. I lost one to three!"

According to the civil judgment issued by the Beijing Daxing District people's Court, Tesla was ordered to refund one to three for fraud. That is, the car purchase contract was revoked, and Tesla refunded 379700 yuan for the car purchase and paid 1.1391 million yuan in compensation.

In the judgment, the court held that the maintenance of the vehicle involved in the case did involve large area cutting, welding, and so on, and this way and degree of repair must have an important impact on consumers' willingness to buy cars. Tesla company only told Mr. Han that "there is no structural damage to the vehicle", which is not enough to achieve the due degree of information disclosure. No matter in terms of positive actions or negative omissions, Tesla Company meets the objective requirements of fraud. On the question of whether Tesla company has the intention of fraud, according to the facts of this case, Tesla company knows or should know about the accident and maintenance of the vehicle involved, and it has the subjective conditions of fraud. To sum up, Tesla Company constitutes fraud.

Tesla, the Chinese official said in response to the media: fully respect the court's judgment based on current information, and will fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers. However, the vehicle craftsmanship in this incident is very different from that of traditional models, and we think that the vehicle evaluation report in the first instance does not fully and accurately reflect the real condition of the vehicle. Therefore, Tesla will appeal in accordance with the law.

It is understood that on June 1, 2019, Mr. Han ordered a Tesla officially certified used car on Tesla's official website, the model is Model S P85, with a total price of 379700 yuan, and confirmed with the seller that all officially certified used cars have passed comprehensive original factory testing.

The owner said, "Tesla officially certified that the used car is higher than the market price of the second-hand car. I chose to buy this car because I believe in official pre-sale publicity and related quality assurance, as well as after-sale quality assurance." And my pre-sale and sales confirmed again and again, all told me Tesla does not sell major accidents, blisters, fire, there is no structural damage. "

The delivery was completed on June 5, 2019, but the owner of the follow-up car found many vehicle problems for more than two months and went to the service center for maintenance at least 7 times during the period.

After a shocking incident, Mr. Han questioned the quality of the vehicle. "on the evening of August 24, 2019, I was driving this car on the highway at a speed of about 120 when suddenly the car gave a bang, brakes and switches were completely paralyzed, and five failure codes jumped out." Mr. Han said that it nearly caused a major traffic accident, and then the vehicle was consigned to Tesla service center for inspection and maintenance.

After questioning the quality of the vehicle, Mr. Han commissioned a third-party agency to identify the vehicle. The results showed that the C-pillar and rear wing of the vehicle were cut and welded, which was an accident car.

Mr. Han said, "the test results found that the left c-column and c-column outer plate are cut and welded, here is the body frame, if there is cutting welding will destroy the body structure, there are major safety risks, do not meet the Tesla certification car sales standards."

In a fit of anger, Mr. Han decided to sue Tesla Company to resolve the matter through legal means.

According to media reports, Tesla argued that during the period when the original owner was using the vehicle, the vehicle had a very minor collision while changing lanes on January 8, 2019. According to the on-site photos, damage agreement, accident identification and maintenance list and other evidence, it can be proved that the accident only injured the left rear leaf plate of the car body, the edge of the rear bumper and the surface of the wheel hub, and did not damage the vehicle safety structure at all. does not constitute a major accident or structural damage; Tesla company is not aware of the accident, there is no intention of fraud.

At the same time, Tesla believes that there is no major accident in the vehicle involved, nor is there any structural damage caused by the replacement of the leaf board, and Tesla did not commit any fraud when selling the vehicle. The vehicle delivered to Mr. Han is fully in line with the sales promise of "no major accident and fire soaking water." Mr. Han's claim has no factual and legal basis and should be rejected.

The Beijing Daxing District people's Court of first instance ruled that the maintenance of the vehicle involved in the case did involve large-scale cutting and welding, and that Tesla knew or should have known about the accident and maintenance of the vehicle involved. Tesla company constitutes fraud, return one to three.

In response to the matter, Tesla responded that he would appeal in accordance with the law.

Welcome to subscribe to the WeChat public account "Automotive Industry Focus" to get the first-hand insider information on the automotive industry and talk about things in the automotive circle. Welcome to break the news! WeChat ID autoWechat