Hacker News Reader

Comment by sjm-lbm | Hacker News Reader

> If the previous owner misrepresented the car as a P90 and modified the badge then it's on them.

I'm not entirely sure if I agree with this - they didn't just modify the badge, they also provided the additional rage from a P90.

As a thought experiment: if I sell you a BMW 328i as a 340i but I also swap the engine and sell it with the additional power that comes with that change, have I misled you? Perhaps - I'm honestly not sure - but I don't think selling a car with a P90 badge that also includes the modifications needed to have that car act as a P90 is automatically wrong.

View on HN

The key of this issue here is that there's a software lock that's been incorrectly unlocked. So it's a reasonable assumption that it might become locked again in the future. Regardless of the product, I believe that morally it needs to be disclosed to the buyer so that they can be aware of the risk and factor that into their buying decision and pricing.

> I don't think selling a car with a P90 badge that also includes the modifications needed to have that car act as a P90 is automatically wrong.

Neither do I. I'm okay with 'Here's my P60, that Tesla accidentally unlocked.' but not 'Here's my P90'.

> it's a reasonable assumption that it might become locked again in the future

it is absolutely not reasonable that someone will mess with your car, whether they do it by software or by breaking into yuour garage. Both should be treated as crimes.

If they want to touch the car, they need concent of it's legal owner or they can go to court, and make their case to the judge. I wonder if they can convince a Judge that Joe Bloggs should let them mess with his car, because they made a mistake while servicing Jamed Smith 10 years ago. Most likely the judge would tell them to get lost, it's their mistake after all.

I disagree with "it's a reasonable assumption that it might become locked again in the future". Unless this was very explicitly explained by Tesla to first customer.

The default assumption is going to be "they were out of 60kWH batteries so they gave me a 90kwh battery" end of story. And gifts cannot in general be taken back. Certainly not from later owners.

It is not like Tesla will give you lots of information. I know that my own replacement battery in my own Model S was a refurbished one, not a new one, because of the letters "RFRB" or something on my receipt. At no points in their process do they provide more details than the very minimum or let you talk to humans that can meaningfully answer questions (in my own experience).

If this info (that it was not supposed to be a gift) it was given to the customer probably in the form of "99kwhlckdwn60" on the receipt and no further info or something equivalently obscure.

If it looks like a gift, why not assume it was a gift? It is entirely reasonably they would gift 30kwh more if 60kwh was out of stock?

I think my original language was unclear. Let me rephrase it to: It's a prudent assumption for an educated buyer to expect a lock feature that was unlocked accidentally to become locked again later knowing companies like Tesla and their customer service track record.

I agree that Tesla taking it away after a long period of time is unreasonable.

Why should they assume that it was unlocked accidentally?

I'm not saying they should assume. I'm stating that if the seller clearly knew, then it should be represent correctly at the time of the sale.

I still disagree about your main point.

Even the existence of software controlled lock features is not something that most people will even know about.

I would say this stuff is "arcane knowledge for geeks", not "prudent assumption".

Not all Tesla customers work as programmers or have read up in Tesla forums on the internet.

> if I sell you a BMW 328i as a 340i but I also swap the engine and sell it with the additional power that comes with that change, have I misled you?

Amongst car people, I think you have. Motor swaps come with all sorts of other risks. Hell, it’s good manners to disclose if you swapped a motor for equivalent power, for helping the next owner diagnose any problems or be aware of mileage discrepancies.

It’d be good manners at the very least to disclose something was purchased as one model, but made to be equal to a different model by whatever means. It could have future implications to the buyer, just like the ones in this story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com