[YesAuto New Energy] In 2019, a Tianjin car owner bought a Tesla officially certified second-hand car through official channels, but the owner subsequently passed a third-party appraisal agency’s inspection and found out: the car’s C-pillar, rear fender There are signs of cutting, repair, and structural damage. It is an accident vehicle. Subsequently, the owner of the car filed a claim and sued Tesla. In the first instance, the court ruled that Tesla “refunded one and compensated three.” Tesla did not agree with the verdict and believed that the car had no structural damage. On December 6, 2020, we contacted Tesla's lawyers to understand the matter. (Review of the incident)
●Event review (the following timeline comes from the Tianjin owner’s Weibo):
For this dispute, Tesla believes that the biggest controversy is whether the car is a “major accident vehicle” and whether there is structural damage. Tesla said: The former owner of the car had a scratch on the rear fender in the car, but because the Tesla Model S uses an all-aluminum body, it cannot perform regular sheet metal repairs, so Tesla officially authorized a third party The maintenance organization cut and riveted the original rear fender of the car. This operation complies with the guidelines of Tesla's official maintenance manual and the maintenance standards set by the state. Therefore, Tesla believes that the vehicle has no structural damage.
We also learned from Tesla officials and lawyers that the official learned that the car had a rear fender replacement when selling this second-hand car, but Tesla believes that this was caused by a small scratch, and the maintenance method is also in line with the country. The required maintenance standards and the vehicle had no structural damage, so the Tianjin vehicle owner was not informed of the replacement of the rear fender due to the scratching.
Tesla also stated that: in the court hearing, Tesla has already defined and distinguished the fenders and C-pillars in the national second-hand car identification standards and the national standards for second-hand car maintenance, as well as the processes and maintenance that should be adopted in the maintenance. The standards that should be met were explained one by one, and Tesla finally concluded that the vehicle does not involve C-pillar cutting and no structural damage.
Tesla believes that fender maintenance is a very common situation, and disagrees with the results of “fraud” and “return one compensation three” given in the first instance. Tesla has appealed and a second instance will follow; Tesla hopes In the second instance, the judgment on the “fraud” part was corrected and Tesla was determined to be free of fraud. In the future, we will continue to follow up on this matter.