Model S

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

Gel Leaking from Touchscreen

124

Comments

  • edited November -1
    I am with AR. One's tires being rotated every 5K won't happen if Tesla Service deems it not necessary. Until someone is denied warranty work under the ESA because they didn't meet the absolute exact lettering of the agreement, then this is all academic.
  • edited November -1
    @rxlawdude "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."

    Um, yes, subsequent oral statements DO, in fact, modify written language contained in the four corners of the document, even where the internal language precludes such modification. This could be clarified but it is NOT a legal mess. Tesla would never be able to sell another car if they began screwing customers on language technicalities. We all know what Elon said, it is in the record, and it stands - both morally and legally.

    You may be a great lawyer, and I have had many great lawyers working for me, but I would not hire you. I have spent many hours in courtrooms and depositions as a plaintiff, as a defendant, and as an expert witness. I am currently involved in a case where there is conflicting language in documents and in subsequent emails and oral conversations, and the answer in law is NOT always that the document controls - especially subsequent relaxation of the responsibilities of the parties, where the aggrieved party relied on the revision. The judge or jury invariably goes to the INTENT of the parties, to the extent such can be determined, often overriding the clear language in the document. Are you really a lawyer?
  • edited November -1
    @PD, thanks for your expert opinion. I won't buy any oysters from you, either. :-)
  • edited November -1
    <i>We all know what Elon said, it is in the record, and it stands - both morally and legally.</i>

    Lots of stuff Elon has said is in the record but I'm not sure I'd be comfortable staking the outcome of a lawsuit on it. All they need do is have Elon explain how long he thinks a month is and he'd be disqualified as incompetent.
  • edited November -1
    <i>Of course not, because brakes are always listed as a wear item, not a warranty item, and are therefore excluded.</i>

    I've never heard of a manufacturer not making good on warped brake rotors when it had nothing to do with pad wear. Just because something is a wear item doesn't mean that it won't be covered under warranty if the part has a defect. Brake rotors won't be replaced if you chew through them, because you damaged them.

    Oral contracts are perfectly legal, and if Elon says something, it counts. If I have a contract and it says in large print that the small print doesn't apply (by contradicting it) and the small print says that the large print doesn't apply, you can't say that the large print doesn't apply due to the small print, because the small print would be a contradiction, not a disclaimer. In the case of oral contracts, if they contradict what's in writing, both are supposed to be true. The written one generally has more weight since it's easier to prove, but when the head of a company says something in a very public way, and it's done so after the written contract was made, it's reasonable to conclude that the company meant what the head of the company said. One could argue that the print said otherwise, but one could argue against the print by saying that Elon said otherwise.

    Even if a lowly employee in sales promises you something, just because the paper says something different doesn't mean you can't hold the company to what the employee said, unless it's not a reasonable expectation. It's not something where there will be a blanket agreement as to who is right, but if it's something widely repeated by sales people and has been widely quoted in the press, it will have more weight than if it's a one off statement that is outside the bounds of what everybody else expects.
  • edited November -1
    "Even if a lowly employee in sales promises you something, just because the paper says something different doesn't mean you can't hold the company to what the employee said..."

    With all due respect, I'm afraid you're incorrect.
  • edited November -1
    @Haggy, OK, sorry, I was thinking of the pads, not the rotors. So yes, take the win on that example.

    Kudos to @rxlawdude. What @P_Dave and @Haggy are thinking of is almost correct in a different circumstance. What they are thinking of is when a subject is not specified in a written contract, then yes, the words of an executive can be held as a legally binding statement that makes up an oral contract.

    I recall actually a specific instance where Sun had open sourced Java, and the CEO at the time had been writing on his official company-hosted PR blog that he was encouraging others to make use of it and make other open source stuff that used it and worked with it, since they had open sourced it. Oracle bought Sun and then wanted to monetize Java more and basically put the toothpaste back in the tube and pretend that the former CEO's words were not officially representing the company but were just personal opinions. I don't remember offhand seeing the resolution of how that ended up.

    @Haggy's example doesn't apply, where he's talking about two different sections within the same written contract, so they have the same weight. Of course that will have to be figured out of what the real intent was. But I think the legal principle is that if written and oral statements cover the same topic and disagree, they do not have equal weight. The written would be controlling, especially if it specified that it could not be modified by oral statements.
  • edited November -1
    I've had this exact same screen leak and currently have it in Tesla service for a warranty replacement (at 45k miles). The technician who picked up the car said there are very few cases and was collecting info on my usual parking habits, especially as they would expose the car to heat and humidity conditions. Seems like they have some concern about how big the issue could be and really want to identify the failure mode.

    This vehicle was one of the first produced and delivered in late 2012. There have been very few defects. Living in Texas, we see some hot sunny days, and I almost always find a covered parking spot at work. The car is always parked in a garage at home. Otherwise, it sees some occasional heat build up while out and about. There may have been some rather high interior temperature spikes while parked outside at the airport this summer. Normally, I pay extra for covered parking but couldn't this time. That's the only exception I can really think of. I'm wondering if Tesla might have this temperature data stored in a data base to examine.
  • edited November -1
    @ Rocky_H,

    I believe Oracle only sued Google over use of Java in Android.
  • edited November -1
    @Amped, Yes, that's the lawsuit this was about. Google does not use the actual code of Java. They used a clean re-implementation from the published API's (specification of inputs/outputs/error codes, etc.) that another company did and published under GPL. Oracle was trying to claim that those API specifications for interoperability were copyrighted, which is ridiculous and would be a disaster for the entire world of programming. Here is an article about that.

    http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/oracle-and-the-end-of-programming-as-we/232901227
  • edited November -1
    <i>@Haggy, OK, sorry, I was thinking of the pads, not the rotors. So yes, take the win on that example.</i>

    It's a discussion, not a contest. I don't think there's even major disagreement here. As I said, the written part will generally be given more weight, but that's not always the case, especially with something a CEO announces publicly in a big way. I don't recall Tesla mailing me an addendum to my sales contract saying that I have unlimited miles on my drive train warranty, nor would anybody claim that a written statement that says it can't be altered means I don't have the extension.

    A lot of time, it's not really a matter of the fine points of the law but whether a company would even fight it. Companies like Tesla will generally side with ethics rather than nit picking over whether something is deceptive, and it shouldn't matter if something is a warranty or a service contract.
  • edited November -1
    "I don't recall Tesla mailing me an addendum to my sales contract saying that I have unlimited miles on my drive train warranty, nor would anybody claim that a written statement that says it can't be altered means I don't have the extension." Yet the information of that updated policy is clearly posted on the Tesla website and in your updated Owner's Manual.

    You're stretching here - the ESA has certain RESTRICTIONS. There are verbal assurances that the RESTRICTIONS will be ignored. There is no evidence of such on the Tesla website, or in the ESA's plain language itself. Expecting the restrictions will be ignored when you go in for that $4,200 repair and find out they are enforcing the terms will result in disappointment. Only you can determine if that's a bet you want to take.

    And of course, this ONLY is an issue if you took the "since it's only an inspection, I'll do the recommended service visits on my own schedule" approach. Those who have followed maintenance recommendations are golden. (Well, a little less golden after paying for the services and ESA.) :-)
  • edited November -1
    I feel when Tesla sells an ESA they MUST review the car's history and deny the ESA purchase if they have any issues with how the car was serviced. They could not possibly sell an ESA that they have no intention of honoring.

    It would be unbelievable disreputable if they ever sell an ESA to a customer for $4,000 and then when a problem develops after 4 years say, Oh you missed a service so no warranty for you...

    That wording on the ESA country really should be made more clear.

    And we are not even talking about the $200 per issue/item deductible of the ESA. Especially when considering the $200 per issue deductible, Tesla might just have the worst Extended Warranty program in the entire automotive industry. I don't know of any other car manufacturer that has such a high deductible for warranty repairs.

    I really wish they'd have a clean extended warranty you can buy like other car manufacturers where basically you buy the warranty and they fix what breaks. Seems simple enough.
  • edited November -1
    <i>I feel when Tesla sells an ESA they MUST review the car's history and deny the ESA purchase if they have any issues with how the car was serviced. They could not possibly sell an ESA that they have no intention of honoring.</i>

    The only way for them to review service records is for them to ask you for them. By law, they can't require you to use Tesla for scheduled maintenance, and it's up to you to keep records in the format of your choice. If you keep a log of the dates and times and what was done, that should suffice. Unless they can show evidence that your records are wrong, there's nothing they can do. They can't stop you from doing your own inspections and they can't require anybody to charge you to do it, so the lack of receipts isn't relevant.

    As Dave said, it's the intent that counts, and no reasonable person would say that the intent of having you follow a maintenance schedule was to have a way to deny unrelated claims.
  • edited November -1
    This whole thing sounds weird. I took the ESA and have had stuff done on 2 occasions without a fuss and without paying a penny. I wa told by my service center that if I was a few thousand miles out of warranty they would still take care of me. Perhaps there is no consistency between different service centers.
  • edited November -1
    I wasn't charged the $200 deductible with my ESA-related work either.
  • edited November -1
    I believe that rxlawdude is correct the he says it comes down to a matter of how much you want to rely on oral statements vs getting the changes or modification in writing. While technically right on the question of what the docs say, I think the comments above regarding what Tesla or any manufacturer would do in the real world are also correct - the practical reality is that if you don;t get the regular serving done according to Tesla's schedule, you will be okay, because there have been varying public statements by Tesla execs on that topic. I am willing to take that risk. I do get the service, but not necessarily on the written schedule.

    I am reminded of having a town hitch receiver on my car - I use it mostly to carry bicycles, but have toned a trailer a few times, documented in several threads on this forum. I cannot deny that I have owned with my MS. However, Tesla's owners manual specifically says the car is not intended for towing and that it could avoid the warranty. Am I nuts? Perhaps for the reasons, but not this - because of four things that I can prove. First, Tesla has presented at the TesLive conference with the hitch manufacturer present as a vendor and made no objections. Second, Tesla has installed two EcoHitches at its own service center that I know about personally. I presume there are others. Third, Tesla has serviced my cars numerous times, including removing the rear bumper on both cars, and has never objected to the hitch being in place. Fourth, under the law, a modification to a vehicle cannot void any portion of the warranty unless the manufacturer asserts that the modification is the reason that the warranty work is required. For example, unless the hitch somehow affects the battery directly, having the hitch there does not allow Tesla to avoid warranty responsibility for the battery.

    I am therefore fairly comfortable that my EcoHitch, while probably technically violating the warranty, would never be enforced as such unless something that occurs results from the hitch being in place. I do not think that is a serious risk. So yes, legalese matters, but does not always control outcomes. It simply establishes a position to begin negotiation.
  • edited November -1
    excuse typos -damn autocorrect. Still readable.
  • edited November -1
    This is all so easily resolved by:

    1. Tesla making an official statement about the ESA language (or changing it retroactively for all who have purchased).
    2. Tesla ensuring its employees are consistent in how paid, warranty, ESA, and goodwill situations are handled.

    I just wish Tesla would once and for all address these ambiguities and variations in practice.
  • edited March 2018
    Does a leaking screen fail catastrophically, just going black kerblooie, or tend to start to gradually lose clarity, sensitivity, etc? We have a 2012 MS, with more than 80,000 miles on it. A year or so ago I noticed wavy lines just inside the left and right sides of the touch screen. Then my wife told me the upper rim of the cubby right under the screen had sticky gunk building up. Our battery had to be replaced a month ago, under warranty thank goodness (motor got noisy about 7 months ago and was replaced promptly). While getting a loaner battery to tide me over till our battery is refurbished I asked - as I was about to drive away - the San Rafael, CA service tech about the gunk. He said uh oh, your screen is failing and that’s out of warranty. That will cost $5000 or so. So those odd lines along the screen’s edge must be the puddle of gel laminate, that this comment string describes, shrinking and withdrawing as it leaks away. The crud wipes away with Goof-Off solvent, and I have put off going back and paying several thou for a new screen.
    So again, anybody know if the impending failure is likelier to be a hard or soft crash landing? I don’t relish thoughts of having to drive our car Peet in for service with only the small dashboard displays to control things like AC, etc. We often have the car more than 100 miles of winding 2-lane country road from a service center.
  • edited March 2018
    I've seen problem screens, but they oddly seem to continue to function with the leaky screen. You'd think the lack of "liquid" of LCD display would stop displaying. Other than the goo, I don't think there a big concern of outright failure - more likely part of the display may become unreadable.

    Ok, that price quote was nuts. I asked my SC yesterday, and a screen replacement (parts and labor) is $1200. Still expensive, but not $5000. An entire MCU (display and computer) replacement is $2250. There is quite a bit of labor to replace these, as the entire dash needs to be disassembled/reassembled. These prices were for an out of warranty repair, at $175 labor. Some areas might have different prices, but I expect it is the same or less in all of USA.
  • edited November -1
    TT.

    The physical part of the screen change is about an HR, maybe 1.5 hrs. I changed one out with a ranger in my car.

    They push the dash up with airbags to reveal the screws and the trim pieces on the sides are a huge pain to pull out with ripping some skin.the silver trim is attached to the screen so no need to remove that until you have the screen out. The car can be on when unplugging. When the ranger started unplugging with the car on I freaked and was told it's fine. He plugged everything in when the car was still on also.

    It's fairly easy to do
  • edited March 2018
    @Silver2K - That's a neat trick. Wish I had those airbags :)

    I've pulled apart portions of the dash and it is no fun. Some parts I could never get to release (held in with snaps). Maybe with a crowbar, but I was unwilling to risk maring my nice S and figured another way to do what I needed.
  • edited March 2018
    Thank you TeslaTap.com, with your reassuring word that the leaking gel will probably not wreck the touchscreen all of a sudden. By the way, I did some internet searching on what the gel does, other than leak out. It is an “optical bonding” agent, silicone-based most commonly. It reduces glare, internal reflection, and condensation while enhancing contrast. It is not the liquid in “Liquid Crystal Display”. That is deeper in the screen, is inherently compartmentalized so cannot leak en masse, and is key to how polarized and color-filtered light is rapidly throttled up and down in the brightness of each pixel. Then there is another layer that provides sensitivity to finger touch, a whole ‘nother story there. Anyway, a fascinating agglomeration of technologies that took many decades to reach this point. Further by the way RCA, in what has to be an epic blunder, employed the first guy to work out the basics for liquid crystal displays but failed to see much commercial potential so did not patent or otherwise protect it. But I digress....
  • edited March 2018
    @Ttap, would be a lot less fun if snapping the dash back together is difficult. :-)
Sign In or Register to comment.