1. Tesla sometimes does repairs via "goodwill" accounting instead of standard warrantee service. On it's face, this sounds like a good thing.
2. Tesla bought some guys car, then resold it. Again, that's a good thing in isolation.
And the suggestion is that they did the goodwill thing so that they could scam the new owner of the car by evading lemon law disclosure. Well, OK. Did they? Show us the evidence. If there's no actual car that got sold where you can document these repairs and show they were unresolved... I just don't think there's much of a case here.
The only way this makes sense is if you start out a priori with an assumption that Tesla is trying to scam their customers, then try to find a scenario where they could do it. That works for writing novel plots, it's not much evidence in an actual court.
In what way is that possibly good?? At best its a deliberate mischaracterization that obscures the number of serious manufacturing flaws. At worst its fraudulent accounting.
> And the suggestion is that they did the goodwill thing so that they could scam the new owner of the car by evading lemon law disclosure. Well, OK. Did they? Show us the evidence. If there's no actual car that got sold where you can document these repairs and show they were unresolved... I just don't think there's much of a case here.
I linked two, and theres firsthand testimony from someone who was in the company. You're just freely making shit up
At best it's not a deliberate mischaracterization. It depends on the judgment call of whether the repairs would otherwise be covered under warranty.