It’s very clear when you buy a Tesla that the car does not completely drive itself without human supervision. It’s part of the agreement, and the use of FSD as the marketing name of the feature doesn’t change that.
>The conduct of delivering something that is not what you advertised fulfills the elements.
The issue is what was promised. The promise is not just the title of the feature, but all of the information presented to you when you buy a Tesla.
And I’ll contradict you all day if I want because you’re not just wrong, but clearly suffering from Elon Derangement Syndrome.
You’re clearly not a lawyer even if you role play one online.
Yes, good faith and fair dealing has nothing to do with this and shows that while you may know enough to pull out the restatement, you don’t really get the law. Good faith has to do with conduct in the execution of an agreement that undermines the deal without seeming to technically violate it. It doesn’t have anything to do with putting caveats in fine print.
I’m not totally defending Tesla’s mildly misleading advertising here. I’m saying it’s not fraud and not really comparable to the massive fraud committed by Holmes.
Because the more detailed description of the feature clearly explains what it does and doesn’t do. Say you sign a contract, one section is titled “Seller Assumes Liability for Injury” but then the text of that section lists some circumstances where they don’t. Totally fine and legal.
This is a dumb comment. Leading with stretched claims that are then clarified in the fine print is different than outright lying. No one who did a modicum of due diligence bought a Tesla thinking they were getting a completely self-driving car that requires no human input.
There’s a reason why we have specific false and deceptive advertising laws. Most of it doesn’t rise to the level of fraud. Fraud requires a lie and reasonable/justifiable detrimental reliance on that lie.