AutoBeta(AutoBeta.net)06/22 Report--

Tesla was sued by the car owner for "suspected sales fraud". The court finally ruled that Tesla Automobile sales and Service (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd. lost the case and needed to return the car at the original price and compensate the owner for the purchase of 778200 yuan.

According to the Civil judgment of second instance on Product liability dispute of Li Zhilong and Tesla Automobile sales and Service (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd., issued by the Intermediate people's Court of Lishui City, Zhejiang Province, the party Li Zhilong (hereinafter referred to as "Mr. Li") spent 778200 yuan to buy Tesla Model X, and later found that the driving motor model certificate of the car was inconsistent. So Mr. Li sued Tesla Automobile sales and Service (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd. in court and asked it to "return one for three."

It is understood that during this period, Tesla Wenzhou Company was suspected of withholding information and sold the vehicle to Mr. Li. After buying the car, Mr. Li found that it could not be licensed normally in the DMV, resulting in the vehicle parked in the basement for more than a year, causing heavy losses to it. After the incident, Mr. Li negotiated with Tesla Wenzhou Company, which also accompanied Mr. Li to the DMV to assist him in licensing. Tesla Wenzhou Company believes that because Li Zhilong took the initiative to tell the DMV staff that there was a problem with motor consistency, the order was returned and not listed, so Li Zhilong was also responsible, and Li Zhilong's claim was too high in the first instance.

Mr. Li sued the court of first instance: first, after Tesla Wenzhou Company returned 778200 yuan of Li Zhilong's car purchase money, Li Zhilong returned the vehicle involved in the case to Tesla Wenzhou Company; second, Tesla Wenzhou Company compensated Li Zhilong for the loss of 2334600 yuan according to three times the car purchase money; third, Tesla Wenzhou Company compensated Li Zhilong for 16275.06 yuan in vehicle insurance premium after Li Zhilong bought the car; fourth, the litigation costs were borne by Tesla Wenzhou Company.

Tesla Wenzhou Company believes that Mr. Li's claim is too high and unreasonable, and Tesla has the duty to remind him of this matter in the process of communication, but Li Zhilong should bear the consequences of refusing to surrender the insurance and allowing the loss to expand on his own. and think that the loss for Tesla is even greater.

Subsequently, Tesla Wenzhou Company proposed to return the car for Mr. Li at the original price, compensate for the loss of loan interest of 5, 000 yuan, and pay 6, 000 yuan of transportation and catering expenses to Li Zhilong. The insurance difference and handling fee for the return of the car shall be borne by Li Zhilong himself, and the cost of the first and second instance will also be borne by Li Zhilong.

Obviously, Li Zhilong could not accept this result. After proving to the court, the court made a judgment of first instance: Tesla returned the car at the original price, returned the car purchase fee of 778200 yuan, compensated Li Zhilong for economic loss of 180000 yuan, compensated for insurance premium of 16275.06 yuan, and paid 31833 yuan for accepting the case of first instance, with Li Zhilong bearing 15000 yuan and Tesla bearing 16833 yuan.

As for the result of the judgment of the first instance, both parties were dissatisfied and appealed. During the second trial, the court accepted the problems identified in the first instance because neither side provided new evidence.

For Li Zhilong's appeal, ruled that Tesla sales fraud, the court of second instance held that Tesla Wenzhou Company knew that the motor model document information did not match, but recalled the vehicle on the grounds that the printing was not clear, and there was already a case of concealing the true situation. After learning clearly that the motor model document information of the vehicle involved was inconsistent, Tesla Wenzhou Company neither told Li Zhilong the true situation in time, nor stopped Li Zhilong from using the vehicle, and deliberately concealed the true situation. In addition, in the course of negotiation, Tesla had no evidence to prove that he had clearly informed him of the inconsistent contents of specific models and the serious consequences that the vehicle could not be used normally, and misled Lee Zhilong to buy and use it as long as he could be licensed. The fundamental reason is that Tesla Wenzhou Company conceals the true situation.

Finally, Tesla should tell Li Zhilong that the inconsistent information of the vehicle documents will lead to the serious consequences that the vehicle cannot be licensed and thus cannot be used, but he is lucky to send someone to assist Li Zhilong to go through the licensing formalities. there is an act of deliberately concealing the true situation in order to promote the success of the transaction, resulting in the serious consequence that Li Zhilong cannot be used because the vehicle involved in the case cannot be licensed.

Therefore, Tesla Wenzhou Company did not truthfully inform Li Zhilong at the first time that there was a serious problem that the vehicle involved in the case could not be licensed, and its behavior was a fraud that deliberately concealed the true situation, and should bear the corresponding liability for compensation for the loss of consumers caused by the fraud.

According to the court's judgment, the fee for accepting the case of the first instance was 31833 yuan, 12879 yuan for Li Zhilong, 18954 yuan for Tesla Automobile sales and Service (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd., 27516.8 yuan for accepting the case of second instance, 11131.8 yuan for Li Zhilong, and 16385 yuan for Tesla Automobile sales Service (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd. The verdict is final, which means that Tesla lost the case in the sales dispute.

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