Model S

Tesla Forums are now read only. To continue the conversation with the Tesla community visit engage.tesla.com.

Gel Leaking from Touchscreen

135

Comments

  • edited November -1
    I make no judgment on whether or not $3,000 is reasonable, but I can tell you every potential owner that we all sent a referral to read this under the Service heading as a reason to choose Tesla: "...A big reason for this is that Tesla operates its service centers at break-even. We don't believe in profiting off our product if it is not working." Check you sent items and see for yourself if you sent any referrals before October 31st.
  • edited November -1
    @rxlawdude,
    I've seen you bring up that theory before, that Tesla can accept your money and then deny all repairs, and I think it's completely wrong. I do see what you are saying in the wording, but there is also the foundational legal principle of "good faith dealings".

    For Tesla to accept your money and say they are selling you that service contract, while knowing right from the start that they plan to deny any service in it and not tell the customer that, is very obviously deceiving. They would be intentionally giving the false impression to the customer that they are going to cover it.

    So if it did get challenged, I am sure that despite the wording, that would be overruled because of the intentional bad faith and deception of such behavior.
  • edited November -1
    @ Rocky_H and rxlawdude,

    I'm certainly only speaking for myself when I say this, but Tesla is not <i>that</i> kind of company that would go out of its way to deny extended service as a matter of policy for the reasons cited above. I simply do not get that vibe from my service center, not in the slightest. I have great conversations with my Service Manager who is amazing and extremely professional in all respects. He and his service team go out of their way to advocate for the owners and they routinely go above and beyond what is required every single time.

    While I cannot predict the future, I just don't see this as being part of Tesla's ethos. As long as Elon is at the helm I don't see any cause for concern. Tesla has shown me that they are willing to go the extra mile even when I don't ask for anything. It's a different corporate culture than the traditional automakers.

    I understand the different arguments. I choose to proceed based upon the track record and level of trust that Tesla has established with me. I'm not really going to worry about it. I really mean it when I say that Tesla has my back. The only other company I've felt this way about is Apple, also based upon my first hand experience in several difficult situations where Apple came through with flying colors when it didn't <i>have</i> to.
  • edited November -1
    I found an article showing the cost breakdown for the parts found in the Tesla center display:

    https://technology.ihs.com/Teardowns/detail/?ids=506272_2594


    The total cost comes to about $780. The LCD display by itself is listed as about $170. It didn't provide the part number for the LCD display but I heard in the past that it was the same as what's found in a Macbook. If that's the case, an LCD replacement should be easy to find. Just a matter of finding someone who can replace it, or if you're a DIYer, you can try it (and please post a video of the replacement process to teach the rest of us).
  • edited November -1
    @Rocky, of course I'm familiar with that concept, though it might be more an "unjust enrichment" situation. In any case, I agree with you and Amped that Tesla isn't that kind of company. Where we diverge, given the increasingly questionable X rollout and how Wall Street will react to that, and reports of some "nickel and diming" by SCs and other factors, is what kind of company Tesla will become.

    I certainly hope that they clarify the wording of the ESA. Again, the lawyer in me says that the verbiage wasn't put there for no reason. Can you think of why (assuming their drafting attorney wasn't astute enough to realize the unjust enrichment challenge)? I cannot.

    What you must admit to not knowing for a fact is whether they will expect the 12.5K mile/1 year interval be followed during the life of the ESA. That obviates potential contractual issues above, and would surely be enforced in court. But as written, it's implied that all past maintenance must have been performed at recommended intervals.

    In any event, I'll probably not venture into the ESA unless I see issues popping up after 35,000 miles. I'm still not sanguine on servicing at the 12,500 mile mark, as I'm already at 9,000 after almost four months.
  • edited November -1
    Have you considered checking your odometer calibration to see if it has an error? If it was just 1% off you would actually have put about 500 miles less on Tesla than the odometer indicates. Just a thought.
  • edited November -1
    Also, how many miles where on the car when you bought it? I got a demo car with 650 miles.
  • edited November -1
    @rxlawdude, Ah, yes, unjust enrichment would be applicable. I have also read about how a contract can only be valid if there is actually some mutual exchange of something of value. If Tesla is planning to collect a few thousand dollars of people's money, while planning to give nothing in exchange, the contract would not be valid on its face. Perhaps that is the unjust enrichment factor you were talking about.

    I do see the purpose of the wording if they want to use it. I just think it's being interpreted badly. If they want repair services to be dependent on people getting those scheduled service visits, they need to check that condition and may deny people the ability to buy that service contract. That may come as a rude shock to people, but would be a reasonable and legally solid way to enforce that wording.

    I wouldn't like the go on such ethereal things as "that type of company" or the "vibe" of them, as @AmpedRealtor says. I know that I am skipping a couple of the recommended annual services, since the actual maintenance intervals are every two years. So I am prepared for the possibility that they may not be willing to sell me the ESA. But if I check on that, and they do sell it to me, I do expect it to be honored and will legally enforce it if needed.
  • edited November -1
    I am really curious about why the failure occurred. Anyone know what would cause a panel to leak.
  • edited November -1
    I would like to point out that the OP had 50,000 wonderful miles in which to purchase the ESA, but chose not to do so. In many ways this is a situation of his own making. He gambled on not needing it and lost. Everyone who is saying his speedometer may be off by 1% or asking how many miles he had at delivery are missing the point: HE COULD HAVE BOUGHT THE ESA BUT DIDN'T.

    Let this be a lesson to everyone.
  • edited November -1
    @EESROCK - As to LCD cost, you're correct that it's not that expensive, although buying a single part will be a lot more expensive that the volumes Apple or Tesla buys them at. It's also not clear you can actually buy the identical LCD screen. Keep in mind automotive grade is quite different than a laptop grade display. It requires a much wider working temperature range, and perhaps other better specifications (wide viewing angle, longevity, shock, humidity, etc.).

    For various Model S upgrade projects I've attempted, I've found it often very difficult to get the same parts Tesla uses. The OEMs don't want to bother with a single sale, and may not even advertise the parts that are only sold in high volumes to automakers. Even with an OEM's actual part number, I've run into brick walls in even getting specifications!

    To replace the LCD requires a lot of labor. I've pulled apart parts of the dash, and you have to remove almost the entire dash to get to the display module. It's neither easy or quick. The LTE upgrade at $500 is a bargain considering the labor needed.

    Service doesn't replace parts within the module (with the exception of an LTE upgrade). Replacing the LCD shouldn't be too difficult once you get the module out, assuming you have an identical replacement LCD (which Tesla will not sell you). Since this part is rarely replaced, the construction may require additional parts that are one-use or easily broken, such as flexible connections and adhesive pads. These may be custom parts made only for Tesla. You would not know this until you pull it apart.

    Tesla does not do in-field LCD replacements, the entire display module is replaced if any part of it fails. For this specific case, you'll also have to clean up the goo.

    This is similar to most electronics in any car. If a $0.10 capacitor dies in the Engine Control Module on a BMW, service will replace the module ($1000 or so). Service doesn't have the ability to replace parts within a module. It's not nice, but it's they way most of the service/repair industry has evolved.

    @Roamer - I can think of three reasons for the failure, a manufacturing defect in the seal (which would likely show up very quickly), thermal shock (a very fast large temperature changes in under a second, although I can't think how this can happen in a car), or a blow to the LCD screen, just below the threshold of the glass breaking. The pressure might blow out the seal around the side of the LCD. It might not show up immediately.
  • edited November -1
    <i>I have also read about how a contract can only be valid if there is actually some mutual exchange of something of value.</i>

    That's true but you already got it right when you talked about negotiating in good faith, and that's what counts. A contract is valid when there's consideration in exchange for something of tangible value, so if Tesla gave you the car and warranty for free, and later denied warranty coverage, that's where the mutual exchange part would prove relevant.

    If they sell you a contract, your money is the consideration, and the contract itself is deemed to have tangible value. Thus it would be a legal contract. If you never have a problem with your car and go 100,000 miles with no problem and ask for your money back on the grounds that you didn't get something of value, you wouldn't have a case.

    Likewise, if you asked them to replace brake rotors under warranty after you drove until the pads had no liner left, they could refuse service, do nothing, and you'd have no claim.

    Negotiating in good faith means that they couldn't refuse to replace warped brake rotors on the grounds that you didn't change your battery coolant.

    There are a handful of exceptions to the rule that you must receive something in exchange, but they don't apply here. For example, if you pledge a charitable contribution and expect nothing in return, the pledge is still legally binding. So if Tesla donated a car and a service contract to a Church, they wouldn't be able to say that they aren't obligated to fix the car under warranty or under the contract. If you bought the car at a Church fundraiser, Tesla still couldn't deny coverage. But if they donated it to the Republican Party, they could decide not to honor it.
  • edited November -1
    "Negotiating in good faith means that they couldn't refuse to replace warped brake rotors on the grounds that you didn't change your battery coolant."

    For WARRANTY repairs, absolutely true. For the ESA CONTRACT, not true at all. ANY claim can be refused solely on the basis of the owner not having the evidence of maintenance performed as stated in the owner's manual. There does not have to be a logical nexus between the failure and lack of maintenance, as there does for in-warranty failures.
  • edited November -1
    @Haggy, Sheesh.

    Quote: "If they sell you a contract, your money is the consideration, and the contract itself is deemed to have tangible value. Thus it would be a legal contract. If you never have a problem with your car and go 100,000 miles with no problem and ask for your money back on the grounds that you didn't get something of value, you wouldn't have a case."

    Apples and eels, man. When you say "the contract itself is deemed to have tangible value", you're talking about something entirely different than we are. What has value is their commitment to fix something if it breaks. What we are talking about is if Tesla were to get into this arrangement, planning from the beginning that they aren't going to fix anything. That has no value.

    Quote: "[something] brakes [something]"

    Of course not, because brakes are always listed as a wear item, not a warranty item, and are therefore excluded.

    @rxlawdude, Quote: " ANY claim can be refused solely on the basis of the owner not having the evidence of maintenance performed as stated in the owner's manual."

    Whoa there. Be careful not to change what we're talking about with that wording. The maintenance schedule stated in the owner's manual is every two years---period. This annual thing every year is something they would like and is mentioned in the wording of the ESA. So it is following the maintenance schedule to a T to go every other year.
  • edited November -1
    @Rocky - Whoa there yourself.

    "C. Your Responsibilities
    The Owner’s Manual includes specific recommendations regarding the use, operations, and maintenance of the Vehicle. <b>To maintain the validity of this Vehicle ESA, You must follow correct operations procedures and have Your Vehicle serviced as recommended by Tesla. If requested, proof of required service, including receipts showing date and mileage of the Vehicle at the time of service, must be presented before any repairs under this Vehicle ESA commence. Service within 1,000 miles and/or 30 days of Tesla’s recommended intervals shall be considered compliant with the terms of this Vehicle ESA. </b>"

    Please cite the official Tesla document that specifies "every two year" service.
  • edited November -1
    Actually, let me quote page 127 of the Owner's Manual (referred to specifically in the language of the ESA):

    Service Intervals
    Regular maintenance is the key to ensuring the continued reliability and efficiency of your Model S.

    Rotate the tires every 5000 miles (8000 km), maintain the correct tire pressures, and <b>take Model S to Tesla at the regularly scheduled
    maintenance intervals of every 12 months, or every 12,500 miles (20,000 km), whichever comes first.</b>
  • edited November -1
    Where does on purchase the ESA?
  • edited November -1
    Well, my service center doesn't rotate my tires every 5,000 miles. They do it every 7,500 to 10,000 miles because of extremely even tread wear. So I guess there go my hopes of getting coverage under the ESA, eh? I don't think so.
  • edited November -1
    @rxlawdude, This is why I wish they would also leave a static copy of the owner's manual in your MyTesla account from when you bought the car. They change it often and update everyone's. What you quoted from is only the current version.

    I read all the way through the owner's manual when I got the car, and I remember reading that service interval page pretty carefully. I am fairly sure the owner's manual didn't say that when I got it. I just checked, and I even noticed one other specific change. It used to say brake fluid at 2 years and battery coolant at 4 years. Now, in the current version, the battery coolant says 5 years.
  • edited November -1
    At one time it said rotating at 6,000 miles; now it says at 5,000 miles, etc. And if you do your own tire rotations, as I do, you don't have receipts for those.

    If someone does buy a car now, with the current owner's manual saying to bring it in every year, I suppose that is real. That would be an interesting challenge, though, since it's nothing but checks and inspections at that interval. There is no MAINTENANCE being done.
  • edited November -1
    Elon is on record, in public, saying the service interval isn't a required item to maintain warranty coverage. Oral assertions that can be proven do modify contracts.
  • edited November -1
    Um, Dave, no. As a matter of fact, the ESA specifically states that no person or employee may modify the terms. So, Elon's statements are not at all legally binding. Only the four corners of the agreement, including those that specifically PRECLUDE verbal modifications, will be enforced.

    Again, this is the problem. Tesla needs to straighten this mess out - the mess being inconsistent information being relied upon, inconsistent service center policies, and highly variable quality of sales center followups.

    My concern is when there's a cash crunch, Tesla will in fact ratchet down and start citing the plain language of its contracts.

    I hope I'm wrong and that my concern is misplaced, but I've seen no evidence to the contrary.
  • edited November -1
    Also, Dave, "oral assertions that can be proven do modify contracts." Yes, oral assertions during contract negotiations can be potentially enforced. This ain't that situation.
  • edited November -1
    We’ve had this exact discussion (is warranty and ESA conditioned on specified maintenance intervals?) on this forum frequently.

    The first discussions focused on the warranty and revolved around whether verbal statements from Elon and Jerome supplanted the clear wording of the warranty agreement. Most of us are guessing (hoping?) that they have. But the Agreement itself, to my knowledge, was never changed in any way.

    The same issue also arises in regards to the ESA. The wording of this agreement couldn’t be spelled out more clearly. As has been pointed out here, the ESA specifically requires that maintenance, at the indicated intervals, must be performed in order for the provisions of the ESA to be effective. Again, to my knowledge, these requirements have not been changed.

    According to many forum posts, Tesla’s practice in following its own rules is different from SC to SC: at some the agreements are followed to the letter; at others exemptions and exceptions are allowed frequently.

    I wish the strict maintenance interval didn’t have to be followed; I’m well into the ESA, and have no great desire to spend 700 plus dollars every few months when I tally 12,500 miles. However, the clear wording of the Agreement requires it. So I wish even more, along with rxlawdude, that Tesla would immediately clear up the confusion that’s been going on for a long time.
Sign In or Register to comment.