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.
219? Year? 5? Month? 31? 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 2 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 8, kilometers. Vehicles that meet Tesla standards can only be sold in Tesla official website after providing second-hand certification.
219? Year? 6? Month? 5? Solstice? 8? Month? 24? Damn it? 8? Within a few days, Han Chao bought this set. Models? s？ Frequent problems, * * * maintenance? 7? Time.
are you online? 219? 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.
219? Year? 11? 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 determination of "fraud".
in short, 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？ Fender cutting and repairing is just a common maintenance method after 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 dispute about fraud identification is involvement? Models? s？ Whether there is structural damage or not, both sides still hold different opinions on this part.
this dispute was not concluded in the first instance of the court, but the court made a judgment of the first instance.
contents 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 accident or fire, blisters or 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".
Tesla, as a professional automobile manufacturing and sales enterprise, 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 case of disagreement between the two parties on whether the vehicle involved was structurally damaged due to the accident.
In addition, from the vehicle maintenance photos submitted by Tesla, it can be seen 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 in terms of both positive and negative inaction. 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" when there was 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 being passive, and meets the objective conditions: Tesla knows the accident information more or less.
At this point, you can get a general idea of the 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 with Tesla
First, we interviewed Xu, the lawyer in charge of this 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 domestic standards for judging 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.
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 their general maintenance history, and then sell them according to the trading practice 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 the car, we wouldn't regard the maintenance of the fender as a major accident car, then buy it back at a very low price, add a very high price difference, hide it from Mr. Han, and then make a high profit.
so, we have always believed 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 statement 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 understanding, 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, regarding the cross-sectional structural diagram of our vehicle provided by our Tesla body structural 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 appraisal and evaluation of used cars, as well as a technical standard for used car maintenance.
there are very detailed provisions in it, which are what is the structural part of the vehicle, and then the allowable maintenance methods of the fender of the vehicle, including the 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.
Actually, 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 a car has, the so-called problems and the degree 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 viewpoints
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 vehicle maintenance records can be inquired, and Tesla did not deliberately hide them;
There is no clear standard for 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 is in line with the core commitment of no fire, no foaming and no structural damage when selling cars;
Tesla didn't specify the Korean dynasty when buying a car because it thought the fender (cutting) maintenance was general maintenance.
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 Chao
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. The machine involved in vehicle cutting this time