Previously, it was discovered after a major accident car was sold by Tesla,Rights defending car owner Han Chao directly took Tesla to court. Tesla was sentenced to “refund one and pay three” in the first instance and had to pay more than one million yuan to Han Chao.Tesla is not satisfied with the results of the lawsuit and is still in the process of appealing.
Today, Tesla has been sued by the car owner for alleged sales fraud, and the final result has been released. Tesla has lost the lawsuit and needs to compensate the car owner more than 700,000 yuan.
According to the “Li Zhilong and Tesla Automobile Sales Service (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd. Product Liability Disputes Civil Judgment of Second Instance” issued by the Intermediate People’s Court of Lishui City, Zhejiang Province:
Because Li Zhilong spent 778,200 yuan on the Tesla Model X, the vehicle has the problem of inconsistent drive motor model certificates.Li Zhilong took Tesla to court and demanded that Tesla “refund one and compensate three.”
It is understood that Tesla was suspected of concealing information and sold the vehicle to Li Zhilong. After the purchase, the latter found that the vehicle could not be properly registered at the vehicle management office. As a result, the vehicle was parked in the basement for more than a year, which caused heavy losses.
During the period, Li Zhilong negotiated with Tesla. At the same time, Tesla also accompanied Li Zhilong to the vehicle management office to assist him in the licensing process.However, Tesla believes that Li Zhilong took the initiative to tell the vehicle management personnel that there is a problem with the consistency of the motor, and was rejected by the other party. Li Zhilong is also responsible.
At the request of the first instance, Tesla believed that Li Zhilong’s claim was too high and unreasonable, and that his loss of car purchase was increasing step by step because he did not cooperate with the company’s return process, and he caused more losses to Tesla.
Tesla hopes to return the car at the original price for Li Zhilong, compensate Li Zhilong for loan interest losses of 5,000 yuan, and pay Li Zhilong 6,000 yuan for transportation and catering expenses.The insurance difference and handling fee for the refund of the car shall be borne by Li Zhilong himself, and Li Zhilong shall also bear the expenses of the first and second trials.
Li Zhilong obviously could not accept this result. After presenting evidence to the court, the court made a first-instance judgment that Tesla returned the car at the original price.Refund the purchase fee of 778,200 yuan; compensate Li Zhilong for economic losses of 180,000 yuan; compensation for insurance premiums of 16,275.06 yuan;The first-instance case acceptance fee is 31,833 yuan, Li Zhilong bears 15,000 yuan, and Tesla bears 16,833 yuan.
Regarding the result of the first instance judgment, both parties dissatisfied and appealed. During the second instance, because neither party provided new evidence, the court accepted the issue that was revealed in the first instance.
Regarding Li Zhilong’s appeal and ruled that Tesla’s sales were fraudulent, the court of second instance held that Tesla Wenzhou was aware of the inconsistency of the motor model document information, but recalled the vehicle on the grounds of unclear rubbing, which already concealed the truth. situation.
What’s more serious is that after Tesla Wenzhou clearly learned that the vehicles involved in the case did have inconsistencies in the information on the motor model documents,Neither did he inform Li Zhilong of the true situation in time and truthfully, nor prevented Li Zhilong from stopping using the vehicle, and there was a situation of deliberately concealing the truth.
Third, during the negotiation process, Tesla has no evidence to prove that it has clearly informed the inconsistent content of the specific model and the serious consequences of the inconsistent vehicle document information. The vehicle will not be used normally, misleading Li Zhilong to buy it, and it can be used as long as it can be licensed. Li Zhilong’s wrong judgment was based on the fact that Tesla Wenzhou Company concealed the true situation.
Finally, Tesla should inform Li Zhilong that the inconsistency of the vehicle document information will lead to the serious consequences of the vehicle being unlicensed and unusable, but it was lucky to send someone to assist Li Zhilong in the licensing procedures.There was a deliberate concealment of the true situation in order to facilitate the success of the transaction, resulting in serious consequences that Li Zhilong could not be used because the vehicle involved in the case could not be registered.
Therefore, Tesla Wenzhou did not truthfully inform the Li Zhilong case that the vehicle involved in the Li Zhilong case had serious problems that could not be used on the license plate.Its behavior is a fraudulent act of deliberately concealing the truth, and it shall bear the corresponding compensation liability for the loss of consumers caused by the fraudulent act.
During the second instance, this court respected the wishes of both parties and conducted mediation work many times, and urged Li Zhilong to reduce the amount of the claim. Li Zhilong finally agreed to reduce the amount of compensation to a minimum of one refund, but Tesla Wenzhou failed to agree to the mediation plan, which led to the second instance mediation in this case To no avail.
This court comprehensively considers the principle of good faith in civil acts, the degree of fault of the parties, the fact that the vehicle cannot be used normally on the license plate, Li Zhilong’s litigation fees, attorney fees and other expenses incurred by Li Zhilong for defending his rights, and the mediation between the two parties.The order was ordered by Tesla Wenzhou Company to compensate Li Zhilong for economic losses of 778,200 yuan.
At the same time, the insurance costs are also compensated at the original price of Tesla. The first-instance case acceptance fee is 31,833 yuan, which is borne by Li Zhilong, 12,879 yuan, and Tesla Automobile Sales Service (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd. is responsible for 18,954 yuan; the second-instance case acceptance fee is 2,7516.8 yuan, which shall be borne by Li Zhilong. 11,1131.8 yuan, 16,385 yuan will be borne by Tesla Motors Sales and Service (Wenzhou) Co., Ltd.
This judgment is final, which means that in the sales dispute between the car owner and Tesla,Tesla lost the lawsuit, “sale fraud” was established, and paid the price of “refunding one for one”.
– THE END –
Please indicate the source for reprinting: Fast Technology
#Tesla#Model X
Editor in charge: Ruofeng
.