AutoBeta(AutoBeta.net)06/21 Report--

Tesla Auto Sales Service (Beijing) Co., Ltd. was awarded 100,000 yuan in compensation today, according to Beijing Court Trial Information Network. According to the judgment, the case was a dispute over a sales contract. The defendant is Tesla Automobile Sales Service (Beijing) Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff is Luo Xianghao and Zhou Yan.

The specific event is as follows: On September 28,2019, Luo Xianghao, a customer, placed an order to purchase a second-hand car with Model S60 on Tesla official website official certification second-hand car sales platform under the introduction of Tesla staff. The vehicle price including tax was 456,400 yuan. At the beginning of October, the vehicle was successfully delivered to the user and registered under Zhou Yan's name. In July 2021, Luo Xianghao, the owner of the vehicle, found that there were maintenance marks on the purchased vehicle in the vehicle, so the inquiry found that the vehicle had an accident record in September 2017. Subsequently, through a third-party organization (CHXN APP), it was found that the vehicle involved had an accident accident record on August 5,2018. According to the accident records, the accident type is "other circumstances where--party is fully responsible- -party is not responsible", the claim type is "commercial insurance", the vehicle damage amount is 7700 yuan, the case status is "closed", and the maintenance schedule shows "front bumper, left front fender, left front door, rim maintenance, tire replacement". The owner said that the accident records and accidents of the two vehicles were not informed by the defendant when selling the vehicles involved, infringing on the consumer's right to know.

In response, Tesla argued that it did not agree with all of Luo Xianghao and Zhou Yan's claims. First, the disputed maintenance of the vehicle involved was carried out by a third party. Tesla did not know when selling it, so it could not inform Luo Xianghao and Zhou Yan that there was no premise of infringement of the right to know. Secondly, according to the rules of industry management and judicial precedent, the buyer of second-hand car should have a high tolerance for the slight maintenance history of the vehicle, and the scope of the buyer's right to know should be limited. Third, Luo Xianghao and Zhou Yan claim that the loss amount is insufficient and violates the principle of fairness. Fourth, Zhou Yan is not the opposite party of the sales contract in this case, and Zhou Yan's subject of litigation is not eligible. Fifth, the accident record of August 5,2018, Tesla did not know, so it could not inform the plaintiff. Sixthly, the judgment of Chaoyang Court is essentially different from this case. Tesla Company knows about it in another case, but Tesla Company does not know about it in this case, so the judgment of another case has no reference.

Finally, in view of this case, the court held that this case was a dispute over the sale contract. Tesla Company, as a seller, failed to fulfill its obligation of full disclosure, which affected the consumer's right to know, and it should bear corresponding compensation liability. Considering that this behavior does not involve the safety performance, main functions and basic uses of the vehicle, and has not caused great adverse impact on Luo, Tesla Company shall compensate 100,000 yuan.

It is worth noting that there was also a case last year about Tesla's used car, and Tesla was awarded a one-to-three penalty. Tesla refunded 379,700 yuan for the purchase of the car and compensated 1,139,100 yuan. A Tesla owner revealed that he bought a Tesla officially certified used car Model S P85 on Tesla's official website in 2019 for a total price of 379,700 yuan. He repeatedly confirmed with sales personnel before purchasing that Tesla did not sell major accidents, blisters, fires and no structural damage. However, there are many problems with the vehicle issued by himself in the subsequent use of the vehicle. Later, through the detection of the third party organization, it is found that the C-pillar and rear fender of the vehicle belong to the accident vehicle. The owner puts forward the request for replacement of the vehicle, but it is rejected. Subsequently, the owner decided to sue Tesla and resolve the matter through legal channels.

However, Tesla has said that during the use of the vehicle by the original owner, the vehicle experienced a very minor collision scratch accident when changing lanes on January 8,2019. According to the on-site photos, damage assessment agreement, accident identification certificate and maintenance sheet and other evidence, it can be proved that the accident only injured the left rear fender and rear bumper edge and wheel hub surface of the vehicle body, and did not damage the vehicle safety structure at all, and did not constitute a major accident or structural damage; Tesla Company did not know about the accident, and there was no intention of fraud. In addition, there is no major accident in the vehicle involved, and there is no structural damage caused by replacement of the leaf board. Tesla has not committed any fraud when selling the vehicle. The vehicle delivered to the owner fully conforms to the sales promise of "no major accident and fire bubble water". The owner's claim has no factual and legal basis and should be rejected.

However, in the first instance judgment of the case, the court held that the maintenance of the vehicle involved did involve large-area cutting, welding, etc., and this repair method and degree must have an important impact on consumers 'willingness to buy cars, while Tesla only informed Mr. Han that "there is no structural damage to the vehicle", which is not enough to achieve the due degree of information disclosure. As for the first-instance judgment, Tesla China official response said that Tesla sold vehicles, although cut C-pillar, but because of maintenance process problems, not a major accident car, will appeal. It is understood that this maintenance rights lasted 755 days. Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court upheld the original judgment of the first instance, determined Tesla had fraud, rejected the appeal, and returned one compensation for three.

At present, Tesla has not replied to the decision to be awarded compensation of 100,000 yuan.

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