Tesla in the domestic first case of “refund one to compensate three” case lost, was ruled to the owner Han Chao refund the purchase price and compensate three times the amount, which is the result of the first trial, second trial and retrial after Han Chao sued Tesla since 2019.
Yesterday, Mr. Han, a party to the Tesla “refund one to compensate three” case, posted on his personal microblog: the Beijing High People’s Court ruled in accordance with the law to reject Tesla’s retrial application, and the three-year-old case was finally decided.
The 2019 owner Mr. Han, spent 379,700 yuan in the Tesla official website to buy a Tesla official certified used car Model S P85, later in the process of using the car always found some small problems, the owner through a third-party institutions testing, found that the vehicle C column and rear fender cut welding, the owner Mr. Han think the vehicle this fault will directly threaten life safety proposed The owner, Mr. Han, thought that the vehicle would be a direct threat to life and safety and requested to return the vehicle, but was refused. Subsequently, the owner Mr. Han sued Tesla.
For the situation reflected by Mr. Han, Tesla has said that during the original owner’s use of the vehicle, the vehicle was involved in an extremely minor collision cut on January 8, 2019, while driving a lane change. According to the scene photos, the damage agreement, the accident certificate and the repair order and other evidence, it can be proved that the accident only injured the left rear fender of the body and the edge of the rear bumper and the surface of the wheel hub, and completely did not injure the safety structure of the vehicle, which does not constitute a major accident or structural damage; Tesla was also unaware of the accident and did not have the intention of fraud. And the vehicle in question does not exist a major accident, there is no structural damage due to the replacement of the fender, Tesla did not commit any fraudulent behavior in the sale of the vehicle, the vehicle delivered to Mr. Han in full compliance with the “no major accidents and fire soaking” sales promise, Mr. Han’s claim has no factual and legal basis, should be Mr. Han’s claims have no factual and legal basis and should be rejected in their entirety.
In December 2020, the case had a first instance verdict. According to the verdict released by the owner, the result of the first trial was that Tesla purchased into fraud and was awarded a refund of one to compensate for three. That is, the purchase contract was revoked, Tesla refunded 379,700 yuan purchase price, and compensated 1,139,100 yuan. According to the judgment, the court believes that the repair of the vehicle involved in the case does involve large area cutting, welding, etc., this repair method and the degree of the consumer’s willingness to purchase a car must have an important impact, and Tesla only informed Mr. Han “vehicle does not exist structural damage”, not enough to achieve the degree of information disclosure should be. In terms of both positive action and negative inaction, Tesla met the objective elements of fraud. On the question of whether Tesla has fraudulent intent, the facts of this case can be seen, Tesla company of the vehicle involved in the accident and repair is known or should have known, its subjective conditions of fraud. In summary, Tesla constituted fraud.
In this regard, Tesla appealed the decision and filed a motion for rehearing, which was rejected.
Although the “one for three” case is finally over, there are several other lawsuits in progress between the two parties, involving mobility scooter royalties and reputation disputes.
