However, things did not end there. Tesla disagreed with the first-instance judgment, and then filed an appeal, and the case will usher in a second trial.
In response to this incident, we have heard many different voices from all walks of life. In order to further understand the details of the matter, we recently interviewed Tesla Legal Affairs and owner Han Chao, respectively. In the process, the controversial points in this case gradually became clear.
What happened? What is an argument?
Let's review what happened first. This part is mainly based on the first-instance judgment issued by the court. If you have a good understanding of the event, you can skip the reason part.
20 19? Year? 5? Month? 3 1? Actually, Han and Chao paid for an officially certified second-hand machine through Tesla official website? Models? s？ Still there? 6? Month? 1? Signed a second-hand car ordering agreement on.
Before buying a car, Tesla promised that the used car it sold would go through more than 200 inspection procedures before the replacement vehicle was transferred, and the car was in good condition. No structural damage, less than five years old, with a total mileage of no more than 80,000 kilometers. Vehicles that meet Tesla standards can only be sold in Tesla official website after providing second-hand certification.
20 19? Year? 6? Month? 5? Solstice? 8? Month? 24? Damn it? 80? Within a few days, Han Chao bought this set. Models? s？ Frequent problems, * * * maintenance? 7? Time.
Are you online? 20 19? Year? 8? Month? 24? On March, the Han Dynasty suddenly paralyzed the vehicle while driving, and all the switches and brakes failed, which almost caused a major traffic accident. After that, the vehicle was sent to Tesla's designated maintenance center for maintenance.
20 19? Year? 1 1? Month? 15? In, it was identified by Tianjin Feng Wan Motor Vehicle Appraisal and Evaluation Co., Ltd. that the vehicle involved had structural damage and was an accident vehicle. Han Chao believes that Tesla fraudulently sold accident vehicles that did not meet its commitments, so it filed a case.
principal contradiction
The core issue of this case lies in the identification of "fraud".
Simply put, the owner Han Chao thinks Tesla sold it to him? Models? s？ It did not meet the official commitment of Tesla when selling the car, and concealed the cutting and maintenance information of the fender. The vehicle is an accident car, and Tesla's practice is fraudulent.
Tesla thinks it was sold to Han Dynasty? Models? s？ Cutting and repairing the fender is just a common maintenance method after the aluminum alloy car body is scratched, and it does not affect the car body structure. It is not a major accident car, which meets its commitment to sell cars, and there is no intentional concealment and fraud.
Another key controversy about fraud identification is involvement? Models? s？ Whether there is structural damage or not, both sides still hold different opinions on this part.
The dispute was not concluded in the first instance of the court, but the court made the first instance judgment.
The content of the first-instance judgment
The original text of the first-instance judgment of Daxing District People's Court (the result of the first-instance judgment is no longer valid after Tesla filed an appeal) is as follows:
Before and after the transaction, Tesla's explanation of the vehicle involved mainly focused on the level of "no major accidents or fires, blisters and structural damage".
However, apart from objectively judging whether it is a fire or a foam car, there is no relevant objective standard to define "major accident" and "structural damage".
As a professional automobile manufacturing and sales enterprise, Tesla Company should make a concrete and detailed description of the condition of the traded vehicles, especially the accidents and maintenance within a reasonable range, according to the principle of good faith when selling its officially certified used cars to consumers. Otherwise, in the case that the two sides have different understandings of the relevant provisions and lack objective authoritative standards, they should make an unfavorable explanation to Tesla.
In this case, the evidence submitted by Tesla Company is not enough to prove its claim in the case that there are differences between the two parties on whether the vehicle involved is structurally damaged due to the accident.
In addition, it can be seen from the vehicle maintenance photos submitted by Tesla that the maintenance of the vehicles involved does involve large-scale cutting and welding. This kind of repair method and degree will inevitably have an important impact on consumers' willingness to buy a car, and Tesla only told Han Chao that "there is no structural damage to the vehicle", which is not enough to achieve the due degree of information disclosure.
Tesla meets the objective requirements of fraud, whether it is positive or negative. Regarding whether there is fraud intention in Tesla, it can be seen from the facts of this case that Tesla knows or should know about the accident and maintenance of the vehicle involved, and it has subjective conditions for fraud.
The three main points of the above judgment can be summarized as follows:
Tesla did not give the owner "as detailed an explanation as possible" in the event of an "accident car" dispute;
Tesla's explanation and the evidence that the vehicle is not an accident vehicle and has no structural damage are not enough to prove its claim;
Tesla meets the subjective conditions of fraud: not telling the owner the real information, actively concealing it or doing nothing, and meeting the objective conditions: Tesla knows the accident information more or less.
At this point, you can get a general understanding of the general content, controversial points and the first-instance judgment of the court of Tesla fraud. But at present, this judgment no longer takes effect with Tesla's appeal. Based on this information, we conducted relevant interviews with both parties to the case.
In order to retain the original intention of the interview to the greatest extent, we use the form of restoring the question-and-answer scene and make a simple summary at the end of each interview. You can selectively skip longer content.
Interview Tesla
We first interviewed Xu, the lawyer in charge of the case in Tesla's legal department.
42? Garage No.1: What is the main reason why Tesla does not admit this first-instance judgment (fraud)?
Lawyer Xu: The core reason why we don't recognize it is that the first-instance judgment is obviously not based on fraud, or it doesn't meet the judgment standards of domestic automobile dispute fraud.
Used cars naturally have some maintenance history. For example, in this case, the car was actually a very small accident of the former owner, which led to some minor tears and abrasions on the rear fender.
Because again (model? s？ The fender is made of aluminum, and it can only be repaired by removing the old board and replacing it with a new one, and the maintenance is carried out in full accordance with the official manual.
So we thought it was a small accident of a used car, and then we replaced and maintained the fender. Just like changing the bumper or changing the door, it is the outer panel of the car body. There will be no impact on the safety of the vehicle or the structural rigidity of the vehicle.
Therefore, we buy back cars according to the general maintenance history of cars, and then sell them according to the trading practices of the used car industry, that is, we promise that there will be no major accidents such as structural damage, water burning and blisters.
So we didn't deliberately fake or hide the whole process. For example, vehicle maintenance accidents can also be found on insurance or other platforms.
At that time, when we bought back, we would not regard the maintenance of the fender as a major accident car, then buy back at a very low price, add a very high price difference, hide it from Mr. Han, and then make a high profit.
Therefore, we have always believed in this case. From now on, we don't think we seek illegitimate interests, and we don't deliberately say that we want to cheat consumers, which is a very common second-hand car sale. Therefore, the first-instance judgment said that we constituted fraud in this matter, but we did not recognize it, so we hope to correct the mistake through the second instance.
42? Garage No.1: It was stated in the judgment of the first instance that Tesla did not give as detailed an explanation as possible about this aspect of the vehicle. Han Chao, the owner of the car, also said that you didn't tell him that the car was cut before buying this used car.
Lawyer Xu: Yes, this is the exposition in the judgment of the first instance. But in fact, as a second-hand car on sale, or as an industry habit of second-hand car trading, it is impossible to explain the accident and maintenance of a car in detail as envisaged in the judgment.
Why? In fact, it's not just Tesla. As an industry practitioner, everyone can learn about other used car dealers, and some famous ones in China can see it. At present, in the second-hand car trading, no structural damage, no major accidents and no fire blisters are a core commitment.
For the general maintenance of vehicles, it is impossible for most dealers to give a detailed explanation to every customer who comes to inquire, which will affect dozens of general history of used car maintenance and may involve various maintenance terms. If a consumer wants to explain each maintenance item in detail when buying a used car, the transaction cost of that car will be very high, which is actually not feasible.
This is also why the current trading practice of the whole used car is that when it is sold, it is usually not entangled with consumers and communicates with the general vehicle maintenance history, but directly included in the car price.
Then the core is to promise consumers that this car has no major accidents and no structural damage, which is a common practice in the industry. So we also think that the so-called judgment standard is too idealistic. Our car is actually an ordinary car with a general maintenance history, including the pricing at the time of repurchase and the pricing at the time of sale. We all do this normally, so there is nothing fraudulent in it.
42? Garage 1: You just mentioned that Tesla promised that there would be no structural damage. I think that in the documents of this trial, neither of the two tripartite agency appraisals supports Tesla's point of view. What do you think of this?
Lawyer Xu: Not twice, just once. Han Chao invited a conclusion issued by a Feng Wan motor vehicle appraisal and evaluation company in Tianjin, saying that the vehicle had structural damage. I can also tell you this in detail.
Feng Wan Motor Vehicle Appraisal and Appraisal Co., Ltd. They belong to an advanced appraisal and appraisal company for used cars. They are not judicial appraisal institutions, and then they have a wrong cognition, which they think includes what is written in their appraisal report, because the rear fender of this car and? c？ The pillars are connected together, so cutting leaves is cutting? c？ Column, this is wrong from beginning to end.
During the trial, we also presented evidence to the court about the cross-sectional structure diagram of our vehicle provided by our Tesla body structure engineer, which was clearly marked? c？ The position of the column is completely different from that of the blade.
In addition, at this point, our country also has a national standard called second-hand car appraisal and evaluation, and a technical standard for second-hand car maintenance.
There are very detailed provisions in it, what is the structural part of the vehicle, and then the allowable maintenance methods of the fender of the vehicle, including this cutting and maintenance in this case, and the safety standards that the fender should meet after maintenance. We all explained to the court during the trial, which can prove that the structure of the so-called Feng Wan motor vehicle appraisal and evaluation company is completely wrong.
In fact, the first-instance judgment did not make a legal judgment on whether there was structural damage to the vehicle.
42? Garage No.1: According to the court's first-instance documents, in the case of differences between the two parties, the documents submitted by Tesla are insufficient to prove that "there is no structural damage to the vehicle".
Lawyer Xu: This is also the fact that the judgment of the first instance is incorrect. Personally, I think the evidence we submitted can fully prove our claim that this car has absolutely no major accidents and structural damage, and it is better for the whole vehicle, whether it is the automobile maintenance industry or the whole vehicle manufacturing enterprise. There are clear national standards and industry practices to define what is a major accident and structural damage.
42? Garage No.1: There was also a verdict in the first instance, that is, Tesla knew that this car had such cutting and maintenance, and then did not tell the owner. The court thought you should tell the owner about it, and then you didn't. I still want to confirm this question with you.
Lawyer Xu: Actually, I have answered this question just now. We believe that the maintenance of the fender belongs to general maintenance, and according to the industry practice of used car trading, there is no need to inform. So whether what he said is that we deliberately hide it, in fact, we can't simply judge it like this.
Because the fender was repaired by the former owner himself in a third-party maintenance center, in fact, this is how it is repaired in our country, and the third-party maintenance shop in Beijing will have detailed maintenance records. Then it will be uploaded to, for example, the insurance claim of the former owner will be uploaded to the claim record of the insurance company, but in our company's after-sales system, there is no record of the fender maintenance of this car. All we can see is that this car has a fender order record, so when we buy back the used car for appraisal and evaluation, we regard this car as having fender maintenance.
In fact, automobile is a very complicated industrial product, which involves many technical problems. When you say that you want to inform consumers, you really mean that there is no clear standard, which is a convention gradually formed in a mature market. There are many things we also want to tell consumers, but they can't understand.
Like the first-instance judgment, the so-called events have affected consumers' purchase intention, but consumers' purchase intention is a very personal and subjective thing. Some consumers don't want to buy this car because the paint doesn't look very shiny. Do you think this is a flaw that affects their purchase intention?
On the contrary, we believe that in judicial judgment, judging what kind of defects, so-called problems and degrees exist in a car should be based on some common and objective standards in the whole market, and should not be too subjective. I think consumers may not want to buy it when they see it, so I don't think it is appropriate for you to influence his willingness to buy a car.
I believe that in many other judicial decisions, this case has a judgment that we think is more just.
Overview of Tesla's views
Briefly summarize the core points of Tesla:
The basis for judging Tesla's fraud in the first instance is insufficient, which is inconsistent with the judgment standard of fraud in similar disputes in China;
The maintenance record of the vehicle can be inquired, and Tesla did not deliberately conceal it;
There is no clear standard for the information told by consumers in second-hand car trading, which is mainly in accordance with industry practice, so the court needs to look at this issue more objectively according to the current market situation;
The court's standard for communication of second-hand car trading information is too idealistic, with many vehicle information items and high actual cost, which is difficult to achieve;
Fender (cut) maintenance is a general maintenance, which will not cause structural damage, and it is in line with the core commitment of not catching fire, not foaming and not damaging the structure when selling cars;
Because Tesla believes that fender (cutting) maintenance belongs to general maintenance, it did not specify Han Dynasty when buying a car;
The willingness to buy a car is subjective, so there is no standard to influence the willingness to buy a car. It is inappropriate to make such a judgment in the first instance.
Interview with Han Dynasty
Han Chao, the owner of the car, expressed his views on relevant disputes in our interview.
42? Garage 1: Tesla thought they were selling this at first instance? Models? s？ It's just routine fender cutting and maintenance, and it doesn't damage the structural parts of the vehicle, which is in line with their promise of no foaming, no fire and no damage to the structure when you buy a car, so there is no fraud. What do you think of this matter?
Han Chao: First of all, I want to overturn his so-called cutting part, which means that our rear fender can only be repaired by cutting. I sent you a video, and the picture of this video was cut by them. This time, the organization involved in vehicle cutting, China Automobile Gretesla authorized the WeChat dialogue between the body panel and the painting center, and then they also emphasized that the fender belongs to the structural part in the dialogue. This is the first point.
Second, if it is really a slight scratch or something, it can be repaired with sheet metal. Here is a piece of evidence, because this catalogue of evidence has also reached the court of first instance.
42? Garage No.1: It is a third-party version center officially authorized by Tesla, which means it belongs to a structural part, right?
Han Chao: That's right. Then, second, I put this related information just released in Weibo, which is our national standard. This standard means that it gives a relatively detailed description of the body structure and main body. I also made a related discussion in Weibo, emphasizing that the body structural parts refer to the parts that make up the body, support the covering parts and ensure the strength and rigidity of the body.
Let me explain it to you a little, that is to say, the definition of its structural part is particularly clear, right? The definition of a car body is the non-detachable assembly of structural parts and covering parts after welding or riveting, which is particularly clear.
Because what we cut is the same? c？ Columns and other structural members cannot be disassembled after welding or riveting in the factory. They can only be replaced by cutting and welding, so they conform to this basic concept of car body. If it conforms to the body, it is equivalent to its body structure.
Therefore, Tesla Legal has been emphasizing that according to their user manuals, is our country judging cases according to their Tesla user manuals or according to national standards?
42? Garage No.1: At present, both parties have objections to the maintenance and cutting of vehicles. Then Tesla thought that there were two appraisals by a third-party organization, the second one was agreed by both of you under the coordination of the court, and then the results of the last two appraisals were not enough to judge the structural damage of the vehicle, and then the court has not yet made a conclusive judgment on this issue. what do you think?
Han Chao: Because all their statements are favorable to them now, the appraisal institution adopted by our three parties is judicial appraisal, and it is the only automobile-related appraisal institution designated by the Beijing Judicial Finance Treasury. This is the judicial filing, and then all the foundations they pass are also based on our national standards.
Then they can provide the so-called cross-sectional drawing at will, and then I can send you the structural drawing of their so-called aluminum body car in the body painting center they authorized. You can look at the English above, and you should also understand that this thing is provided by Tesla.
The schematic diagram of the structure authorized by them for the body panel and spraying center obviously contains the cutting part, which can be seen according to the current picture.
42? Garage No.1: Regarding the fraud part, I think the court's judgment says so. Tesla did not understand this situation to a certain extent, and explained it to you in detail. In other words, they think that the pruning and maintenance of damaged leaves is an industry recognized and a relatively recognized maintenance method. Then, they said it would not cause structural damage to the car body. Therefore, when they bought back the user's used car, they didn't lower the price of this maintenance. Then he felt that this was something that everyone in the industry should know, so he didn't inform the owner of this matter in detail. He may think it is unnecessary.
Here I want to ask you, assuming that this maintenance has not caused structural damage to the vehicle, will the news of fender cutting and maintenance still affect your willingness to buy a car?
Han Chao: Let me give you a simple example, because when they sold it to me, there were two identical cars, one with a little more kilometers and the other with a little less kilometers. I made a choice, and then they recommended it. Finally, I chose this car.
These two cars are the same in configuration, performance, architecture and year, that is, from the perspective of normal people, that is, from the perspective of normal consumers, even though I know that these two cars are the same in configuration and price, why should I choose one to cut?
Let's think differently. Let's go to the used car market to choose a car. Will you give priority to cars with cuts? Even if it does not involve structural damage, it will involve huge depreciation.
42? Garage 1: I see, so you think it's necessary to explain this kind of information to you before buying a car, even if it doesn't involve structural damage.
Han Chao: And before the sale, I explicitly asked them to test the car accordingly. I ask them for everything, but I can't find any information through the frame number on any software that costs money, which is the kind of paid inquiry that costs money.
42? Garage No.1: That is to say, this maintenance record was not found in the information given to you by Tesla officials, nor was it the information you paid for, right?
Han Chao: Yes, you can't find any records related to this (fender maintenance) through the frame number.
42? Garage No.1: Tesla said that they were not fully aware of the problem of fender maintenance by the former owner, and their records only contained an order record of fender.
Han Chao: I just sent you another picture, which is the official information on their previous official website. They gave a detailed description of the authorized version. You can have a look, which shows that they can't be unaware of it.
A summary of Korean and Korean viewpoints
Summarize the opinions of the owner Han Chao:
Tesla authorized the maintenance personnel of China Automobile Leiri to chat on WeChat in the body body body body panel repair and painting center, saying that the fender belongs to the structural part, and the staff also explained that the small fender does not need cutting and maintenance;
Models? s？ This kind of fender can only be replaced by cutting and welding, which conforms to the definition of the car body in the national standard of automobiles, so it belongs to a structural part, and the fender can also be seen in the car body structure diagram of Tesla car body painting center.
Even if fender maintenance does not involve structural damage, it also involves huge depreciation, and ordinary consumers will mind and objectively affect the willingness to buy a car;
Tesla didn't tell us the maintenance record of the fender, nor could it be found through the frame number, nor could it be found in the third-party payment software.
The above is our interview with both sides of the incident. It can be seen that both sides have their own views and reasons for the dispute, and both sides mentioned the national standards. Let's take a look at the corresponding documents.
After the interview, the photos of the accident before vehicle maintenance provided by Tesla are as follows. You can see that the left rear fender of the vehicle has been wiped. Tesla lawyer Xu said that the aluminum fender of the vehicle was torn to a certain extent in this accident, so it was cut and repaired.
This maintenance can be judged according to national standards.
Standard 1: automobile body terminology? GB/T？ 4780? -? 2000
The terms of human body parts are clearly defined in this national standard.
The term "body-in-white" on this page is defined as an assembly consisting of a car body, open parts and other detachable structural parts. The definition of "body" is: an assembly that cannot be disassembled after welding or riveting the structural parts and the covering parts.
On this page, the definition of "body structural parts" is: the parts that make up the body, support the covering parts and ensure the strength and rigidity of the body. There is also a definition of "side enclosure system" above: it is located on both sides of the cabin and luggage compartment and consists of skeleton, panel, side windows and related body accessories.
The definitions of these words are clear, but. Models? s？ The attribute definition of rear fender seems to be inconclusive.
It is a "side wall system" component, it is also a "body in white" component, and it is a part of the "body body", but it is not necessarily a "body structure".
Because according to the standard, "body structural parts" should meet three conditions: composing the body, supporting the covering parts, and ensuring the strength and rigidity of the body. The side fenders must form the body, but the latter two can't be determined with the current information.
Moreover, the seemingly clear definition is still uncertain. How to "ensure" the strength and rigidity of the car body?
But we are talking about fenders here, and the actual situation seems to be more than fenders.
Standard 2: Technical Specification for Appraisal and Evaluation of Used Cars? GB/T？ 30323? -? 20 13
What is the first part of this document? 4、5? The page clearly lists the criteria for judging the "accident car".
Combined with the information currently known, the vehicle involved? c？ The column does not have the above defects when rubbed, or it does not have these defects before repair.
But? Models? s？ The body is special, the rear fender and? c？ The column is an integrated design, and the replacement of the rear fender requires cutting and maintenance.
The picture below shows the body parts and spraying center of Tesla provided by Han Dynasty. Models? s？ Car body picture.
This is a picture of the cutting and maintenance of the vehicle involved in the case submitted by Tesla to the court. The cutting part of the maintenance can be seen in the mark.
Traces of vehicle repair can also be seen in the judicial appraisal report document of the second Beijing Shi Jing motor vehicle appraisal and evaluation agency.
After reading these pictures, I can feel that the cut part is really not small. For the second time, Beijing Shi Jing Motor Vehicle Appraisal and Evaluation Agency Co., Ltd. agreed by both parties will give judicial appraisal opinions on the vehicles involved, as shown in the figure.
Participate in this document? Models? s？ what's up c？ Whether this column is affected by this maintenance has not been decided by the court.
But what about "general maintenance"? Models? s？ The degree of cutting and maintenance is really difficult for ordinary consumers to accept.
As a representative of the industry direct selling model, Tesla has attracted many consumers by virtue of information transparency. But what about this year? HW？ Chip event, model? S/X？ Tesla's practice in hanging mandatory recalls and other issues also disappointed and puzzled consumers.
Has Han Chao bought a car so far? 17? Last month, as an individual consumer, there was great resistance to safeguarding rights. Up to now, he has spent a very high cost on time, money and energy. On the other hand, Tesla has also been negatively affected by the rights protection incident in this process.
However, this incident also exposed a bigger problem-"there is no specific standard." What exactly is "structural damage"? How to classify "major accidents"? What is the concept of "the more detailed the better" that used car dealers need to inform before selling their cars? ?
When disputes arise, we either have no specific standards to refer to, or the delineation of existing standards is still not clear enough. For this reason, both parties to the dispute in this case feel that their views are correct. But it also reflects the confusion of the used car market in China.
Here, I think of what Mr. Xu said in an interview:
"Tesla repurchased used cars. We will not use this thing (fender maintenance) as a price reduction point, nor will we say that your vehicle has a huge depreciation. This is the right thing to do, and everyone's burden is small. 」
And I consulted during the interview? 5? A professional in the second-hand car industry said that the fender cutting and maintenance in the second-hand car industry is a thing that will definitely lower the price when collecting the car, but it will not affect the next buyer when selling the car. This has long been an industry practice.
We also consulted a number of professionals with experience in aluminum body maintenance, and their views on aluminum body fender maintenance are also very unified: the minor damage can be repaired by sheet metal, and the major damage really needs to be cut.
However, in the face of "will cutting and maintenance bring structural damage to the vehicle?" What are the answers of these professionals to this question? 2? Who said yes, yes? 3? No, the difference is still in the definition of "structural damage".
In addition, many Tesla owners around me have had side collisions, and "cutting off" can be said to be a very common problem encountered by car owners in maintenance. Everyone's worry is simple-they don't want their cars to be repaired into accident cars.
Lawyer Xu also said that after the rights protection incident, Tesla's current used car sales added the history of fender cutting and maintenance to the matters that need to be informed to consumers, which increased a lot of communication costs. In this case, Mr. Xu said that Tesla officially no longer buys Tesla used cars with a history of cutting fenders and maintenance.
From the consumer's point of view, the owner Han Chao bought a car that had been cut and maintained in a large area without knowing it, and this maintenance record could not be found by the frame number. I believe this is unacceptable to most consumers. Then I bought a car for more than two months, and the vehicle appeared a series of faults, 20 19? Year? 8? Month? 24? On, the vehicle was paralyzed while driving, and all the switches and brakes failed, which almost caused a big accident. These are things that no one wants to experience.
Is it over? 17? Last month, however, the difficult road of safeguarding rights of the Han Dynasty has not yet ended. The second trial of the court has not yet started, and the negative impact of this incident on Tesla will continue for some time. We hope that the court can make a just and fair trial for both parties, and we also hope that the impact of this incident will promote the formulation of relevant industry standards and promote the transparency of used car market information.
Otherwise, only by "convention", there will still be the next Korean wave after the Korean wave.
This article comes from car home, the author of the car manufacturer, and does not represent car home's position.