AutoBeta(AutoBeta.net)09/17 Report--

The owner, Mr. Han, reflected in Tesla's online purchase of a Tesla officially certified second-hand car, Model S P85, and was told by the sales before purchase that there were no major accidents, blisters, fires and structural damage in the Tesla certified car, but Mr. Han always found some minor problems in the car and needed to frequently go to the Tesla service center for repair. after passing the third-party inspection, the vehicle C-pillar and rear wing were cut and welded. Tesla was sued in anger.

Today, Mr. Han, the owner of Tesla, wrote again, "I won the case. The Beijing second Intermediate people's Court upheld the original verdict of first instance. Tesla was guilty of fraud. He rejected the appeal and refunded one to three." The protection of human rights lasted 755 days. "

As for Han's victory, many netizens commented under Han's post: Justice is never absent, only late. Congratulations, Tesla retreated one to three, the second trial to maintain the original verdict, it is not easy. Congratulations, this is a great victory, despite the twists and turns, justice has finally arrived.

According to its civil judgment, the appeal was rejected and the original verdict was upheld. It is understood that in the judgment of first instance, the court ruled that Tesla Company had bought into fraud and ordered it to refund one to three. That is, the car purchase contract was revoked, and Tesla refunded 379700 yuan for the car purchase and paid 1.1391 million yuan in compensation.

Review of related events:

On June 1st, 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. The reason for buying this car is to believe in the 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 owner said: after picking up the car on June 5, 2019, a large number of vehicle problems were found in the following two months and went to the service center for maintenance at least 7 times during the period. On the evening of August 24, 2019, the owner drove the vehicle on the highway at a speed of about 120 when suddenly the car gave a bang, brakes and switches were completely paralyzed, and five fault codes jumped out at the same time. " 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 thought that the failure of the vehicle would directly threaten the safety of life, so he made a request to return and replace the vehicle, which was rejected. Subsequently, Mr. Han decided to sue Tesla Company to resolve the matter through legal channels.

According to earlier media reports, Tesla said that during the period when the original owner was using the vehicle, the vehicle had a very slight 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. And there is no major accident in the vehicle involved, nor is there any structural damage caused by the replacement of the leaf board. Tesla did not carry out any fraud when selling the vehicle. The vehicle delivered to Mr. Han fully complies 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. It is worth noting that in the judgment of the first instance, 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 proper degree of information disclosure. As for the verdict of the first instance, Tesla Chinese officials responded that although the vehicles sold by Tesla had been cut into C-pillar, they would appeal because of the maintenance process, which was not a major accident.

At present, Tesla has not yet replied to the decision of the Beijing second Intermediate Court to maintain the original verdict of the first instance. We will also continue to pay attention to the follow-up situation.

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